Murgatroyd & Murgatroyd (No 3)
[2023] FedCFamC1F 224
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Murgatroyd & Murgatroyd (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1F 224
File number(s): MLC 12634 of 2016 Judgment of: BAUMANN J Date of judgment: 31 March 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Clarification of distribution of funds available after sale of home Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Cases cited: Murgatroyd & Murgatroyd (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 712 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 8 Date of hearing: 16 March 2023 Place: Brisbane Solicitor for the Applicant: Litigant in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Litigant in person ORDERS
MLC 12634 of 2016 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR MURGATROYD
Applicant
AND: MS MURGATROYD
Respondent
order made by:
BAUMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 MARCH 2023
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That the husband shall immediately direct SS Legal to draw the following cheques by way of disbursement of the nett proceeds of sale presently held by SS Legal of $289,715.35, namely:
(a)MR MURGATROYD – $220,819.64; and
(b)MS MURGATROYD – $68,895.71.
2.That upon receipt of the cheques, the husband shall immediately deposit the wife’s cheque into her Country F bank account and shall then email the wife confirming he has done so.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Murgatroyd & Murgatroyd has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BAUMANN J:
On 29 September 2022, the Court delivered Reasons and pronounced orders in respect of contested property proceedings between the parties, Mr Murgatroyd (“the husband”) and Ms Murgatroyd (“the wife”) (see Murgatroyd & Murgatroyd (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 712).
Pursuant to Order 1, the home at BB Street, Suburb L was to be sold. I am satisfied, as a result of evidence offered to the Court by the husband in his affidavit filed 14 March 2023 that:
(a)the home sale settled in early 2023 and after various adjustments, the solicitors for the seller have retained $289,715.35 in their trust account; and
(b)a dispute exists between the parties as to what adjustments need to be made between the parties so as to give proper effect to Order 1(e) whereby the nett proceeds were to be distributed as to 75% to the husband and 25% to the wife.
On 16 March 2023, I heard submissions from the parties, as a result of which I make these further findings as to the claims for adjustment by the husband, namely:
(a)the husband’s credit card liability of $7,740.00 deducted on settlement is the husband’s sole responsibility;
(b)a deposit of $30,750.00 was paid by the purchasers to the vendor’s agent, and after settlement, funds totalling $13,837.50 were paid directly to the husband, after allowance for commission and other charges, totalling $16,912.50;
(c)the husband, during the property proceedings in accordance with Court Orders, paid $13,502.50 to Mr AA, the single expert on Country F law, and the wife should bear responsibility for half of those fees;
(d)similarly, the husband paid $1,980.00 to QQ Valuers, the valuation experts, and the wife should bear responsibility for half of those fees;
(e)the husband solely paid $4,260.00 for marketing expenses of the property (deductable under Order 1(d)) and a further $485.00 for a building and pest inspection of the property; and
(f)despite the husband’s assertion to the contrary, and considering the husband occupied the home exclusively for many years, it is not “legitimate, fair and reasonable” that the wife share the expenses incurred by the husband for his removalists (paragraph 11) or refuse and accumulated junk removal (paragraphs 12 and 13).
Based on these findings, I calculate that the nett proceeds of sale, for the purpose of Order 1(c), should be calculated as follows:
Nett proceeds as per settlement statement $289,715.35 Plus husband’s credit card liability $7,740.00 $297,455.35 Less marketing expenses etc ($4,260.00 + $485.00) $4,745.00 $292,710.35 Plus balance of deposit received by husband $13,837.50 NETT $306,547.85
The wife’s entitlement is 25% of $306,547.85, or $76,636.96 before adjustments for expert expenses. I therefore calculate that the wife should receive, from the funds in trust, the sum of $68,895.71, being:
Share nett proceeds $76,636.96 less 50% of Mr AA fees $6,751.25 50% of valuation fees $990.00 $7,741.25 $68,895.71
The balance from the funds of $289,715.35 held by SS Legal payable to the husband is therefore $220,819.64.
The wife seeks that the solicitors be directed to pay her share to her overseas account. As the husband is the client of the solicitors who hold the nett proceeds of sale, and based on his undertaking to the Court given 16 March 2023 that he would do so expeditiously, I will order the husband to deposit, immediately upon receipt, to the wife’s overseas bank account, her funds of $68,895.71.
I make orders accordingly.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann. Associate:
Dated: 31 March 2023
0