Norman and Norman

In the matter of *Norman and Norman*, Watts J of the Family Court of Australia was required to determine property settlement orders between a husband and wife. The dispute concerned the division of various assets and liabilities held by the parties.

The court was tasked with determining how the parties' property and financial resources should be divided, including real estate, shares, vehicles, and superannuation interests. The court also had to consider the allocation of responsibility for existing debts and the potential sale of certain assets if specific payment obligations were not met.

Watts J made orders pursuant to section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court declared that the husband would have sole right, title, and interest in a specified list of assets, including the P Street property, various bank accounts, vehicles, and his superannuation. Conversely, the wife was declared to have sole right, title, and interest in a different set of assets, including the R Street property, other bank accounts, a vehicle, and her superannuation. The wife was made solely responsible for the mortgage on the R Street property. The orders also stipulated that the wife would transfer her interest in the L Street property to the husband in exchange for a payment of $228,763.00. Provisions were made for the release of an agent and the distribution of funds held by the agent. The husband was ordered to transfer certain shares to the wife, and provisions were made for the accounting of any dividends received after a specified date. The husband was also ordered to provide the wife with a specific cheque. In the event the payment for the L Street property was not made, the property was to be sold, with the net proceeds distributed with a 62% share to the husband and 38% to the wife after costs. Each party was to be solely entitled to other property in their possession, and each was to indemnify the other for associated debts. The Registrar was appointed to execute documents if a party refused to do so. The wife was granted leave to make a partial application for costs concerning parenting matters, but her application for costs in relation to parenting was dismissed.