Pascall and Pascall
[2008] FMCAfam 394
•30 April 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| PASCALL & PASCALL | [2008] FMCAfam 394 |
| FAMILY LAW – Undefended – property settlement – contribution of parties – contribution of wife’s parents – future needs. |
| Family Law Act 1975, ss.75, 79(2) |
| Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143 Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 Pierce v Pierce (1998) FLC 92-844 Williams & Williams [2007] FamCA 313 |
| Applicant: | MS PASCALL |
| Respondent: | MR PASCALL |
| File Number: | SYC 460 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Altobelli FM |
| Hearing date: | 7 March 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 7 March 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 30 April 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Moss |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | DGB Lawyers |
| Respondent: | No Appearance |
ORDERS
The Husband shall do all acts and execute all documents as are necessary to transfer to the Wife the whole of his right, title and interest in the property situated at and known as Property J in the State of New South Wales being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title Folio Identifier [1] within 60 days of the making of these orders.
The wife be solely liable for and indemnify the husband against any liability or mortgage encumbering the property situated at and known as Property J in the State of New South Wales.
The wife pay to the husband or his agent the sum of $8,390 by way of final property settlement within 90 days of the making of these orders.
The husband do all acts and things and sign all necessary documents to transfer all of his right, title and interest in the Honda Civic motor vehicle currently registered in his name to the wife.
In the event that either party fails, refuses or neglects to execute any deed, document or instrument necessary to give effect to these orders, then pursuant to s.106A, a Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia is hereby appointed to execute all deeds, documents and instruments in the name of the defaulting party and to do all such acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to such deeds, documents and instruments.
That otherwise each party be entitled pursuant to s.79 of the Family Law Act 1975 to retain any asset or personalty in that party’s name or possession as at the date of these Orders and that each party shall pay and bear responsibility for any debt in that party’s name or attaching to any asset being retained by that party pursuant to these Orders.
No order as to costs.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Pascall & Pascall is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT WOLLONGONG |
SYC 460 of 2007
| MS PASCALL |
Applicant
And
| MR PASCALL |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application for alteration of property interests, commonly known as a property settlement between the applicant wife, Ms Pascall, aged 40, and the respondent husband, Mr Pascall, aged 42. The wife resides in K, in the Illawarra region of New South Wales, while the husband is resident in Cyprus. Theirs was a marriage of some 16 years in total.
The matter came before me on an undefended basis, with the husband’s former solicitor, Mr Williamson, informing me at hearing that he was no longer instructed. Mr Williamson sought leave to withdraw, which was granted. This is not a case where the husband did not have notice of the hearing – he clearly did, but chose not to participate for a reason known only to him.
The matter then proceeded accordingly. The wife relied on her amended application, filed 18 December 2006, her affidavit sworn
19 February 2008, her financial statement, sworn 18 February 2008, affidavits of both Mr and Ms C, the wife’s parents, sworn 19 February 2008, and the affidavit of Mr S, valuer of the former matrimonial home, sworn 20 December 2006. The wife also gave oral evidence confirming the contents of her affidavit filed 19 February 2008. In her amended application the wife seeks a lump sum payment of $100,000 by way of spousal maintenance, that the title of the former matrimonial home be transferred solely into her name in exchange for indemnifying the husband with regards to the mortgage over the home, the transfer into her sole name of the Honda Civic motor vehicle, and a declaration that parties have sole right title and interest to all personal property currently in their possession, and any money, shares and debentures in their sole names as at the time of judgment. This effectively amounts to between 90 and 100 percent of the assets of the marriage.
The husband had not filed a formal response and affidavit, but instead had filed a document titled ‘Affidavit’ dated 11 January 2007, which was purportedly signed in the presence of a Registrar at the District Court of Nicosia in Cyprus. In this affidavit he seeks 40 percent of the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home, an amount he quantifies as $132,000, that the Honda Civic be transferred into the name of the oldest child of the relationship, [L], that he pay spousal maintenance based on his weekly income, that the wife retain any personalty and chattels currently in her possession, that parties retain any money, shares and debentures in their sole names as at the time of judgment and that parties pay their own costs. No further evidence had been filed by the husband as at the date of hearing.
I am satisfied that Mr Pascall, having filed this document, and having been previously represented in this matter, was on notice of the proceedings, and accordingly that the hearing should proceed.
Background
The parties met when the wife holidayed in Cyprus in May 1986. They were engaged in July of that year, and when the wife returned to Sydney in October 1986, he migrated with her. They were married in a civil service in K in November 1986, followed by large religious service and reception in January 1988.
The parties lived in the Illawarra region during the marriage. At times they lived with the wife’s parents, whilst at other times they resided in their own accommodation. This was an issue in this matter, going towards contributions made by the wife’s parents on her behalf.
The parties owned two takeaway businesses during the marriage, in which both worked on a full-time basis. The wife’s parents also worked in these businesses. The wife’s parents’ contribution to these businesses is in issue in this case. During the course of the marriage, the parties purchased and sold these two businesses. They also purchased two blocks of land and one retail premises. Of these assets, all were sold during the marriage except the former matrimonial home, which is effectively the sole asset of the parties as at the time of hearing. The house, valued at $410,000, is subject to a mortgage to ANZ of $74,000. There are also two vehicles of relatively little value, and some household furniture. There is also some credit card debt. I make findings regarding the assets and liabilities of the parties below.
The parties have three children, [L], who is almost 18, [B], who is 11, and [C], who is 9. All children reside with the wife, as they have done since the date of separation. The husband resides in Cyprus, and has done so since July 2004. He has paid some child support, but this has been on an ad hoc and unpredictable basis.
As stated previously, the husband has not played an active role in these proceedings, leaving me to make a decision based largely on the evidence and submissions of the wife.
Issues
The issues in this case are fairly narrow and consist of:
a)Assessing the contributions of the parties, and those made by the mother’s parents; and
b)Assessing the future needs of the parties, where factors clearly favour the wife; and
c)Making an order that is just and equitable having regard to the pool of assets and liabilities, and the circumstances of this case.
The Applicable Law
The preferred approach to the determination of an application under s.79 of the Family Law Act is set out in a passage found in the Full Court’s decision in Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143 at 39.
The Full Court states that there are four inter-related steps:
a)Identify and value the property, liabilities and financial resources of the parties; and
b)Identify and assess the contributions of the parties and express them as a percentage of the net value of the property; and
c)Identify and assess the other facts relevant under s. 79(4)(d)-(g) including s. 75(2) and determine the adjustment (if any) to be made to the contribution entitlements at step two; and
d)Consider the effect of the above and resolve what order is just and equitable in all the circumstances.
One of the legal issues that arises is whether I should adopt a global or asset-by-asset approach to contribution. The authority in this regard is the High Court’s decision in Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 per Wilson and Dawson JJ at 534-5. It is clear from this statement of the law that either approach is available to me, in part or in whole.
My discretion in this regard should be exercised having regard to the facts of this case.
Another issue in this case is how, precisely, I should weigh and assess the initial contribution made to the marriage by the parties. In this regard, I need to consider the decision of the Full Court in Pierce v Pierce (1998) FLC 92-844. A useful recent decision of the Full Court examines its earlier decision in Pierce v Pierce together with a later case. In Williams & Williams [2007] FamCA 313 the Full Court states as follows at paragraphs 27, 28, 29 and 32:
27. In Pierce v Pierce when speaking of the relevance to be paid to initial contributions the Full Court (Ellis, Baker and O’Ryan JJ) …28.…said at [28]:
In our opinion it is … a question of what weight is to be attached, in all the circumstances, to the initial contributions. It is necessary to weigh the initial contributions by a party with all other relevant contributions of both the husband and the wife. In considering the weight to be attached to the initial contribution, in this case of the husband, regard must be had to the use made by the parties of that contribution.
29. Pierce v Pierce was a case in which the husband brought in $200,000 cash into the relationship. He applied that money towards the purchase of a matrimonial home. He was employed throughout the marriage and supported the wife who, whilst in some paid employment primarily attended to domestic tasks and taking care of the children. The Full Court assessed the parties’ respective contributions to a pool of $320,000 as 70 per cent in favour of the husband and 30 per cent in favour of the wife at the end of a 10 year relationship.
32. In Hunt v Zuryn (2005) FLC 93-226; (2005) 34 Fam LR 169 the Full Court (Kay, May and Boland JJ) allowed an appeal in a property case where a pool of assets of $1.12million had been assessed for contribution purposes as 75 per cent in favour of the husband and 25 per cent in favour of the wife. The Court in allowing the appeal indicated that an assessment of 75:25 fell outside the realms of an acceptable range saying at 79,730; 170:
Accordingly, I must not only identify the contributions of each party, but also assess the weight to be attributed to these contributions having regard to many factors including what has occurred afterwards.
Assets and Liabilities
I was provided with a list of assets and liabilities by Counsel for the wife, having made the addition of the Honda Civic motor vehicle.
It stands unchallenged by the husband, and as such I reproduce it below:
| Asset | Value |
| Property J | $410,000 |
| Various bank accounts | Negligible |
| 1998 Holden Motor Vehicle | $1,000 |
| Honda Civic Motor Vehicle | Not valued |
| Household contents | $2,000 |
| Total Assets | $413,000 |
| Liabilities | |
| Mortgage to ANZ over Property J | $74,000 |
| Credit Cards | $3,400 |
| Total Liabilities | $77,400 |
| Net Assets | $335,600 |
As is evident, this matter concerns a small property pool, in which the only asset of any real value is the former matrimonial home in which the wife and children currently reside.
The wife currently earns $279 per week from her employment in aged care, according to her financial statement, and Centrelink benefits in the amount of $389 per week. As her parents are elderly now, it seems that the financial resources they contributed in the early stages of the marriage are no longer available to the wife.
The husband does not give evidence regarding any financial resources which may be available to him. I note that he refers often to receiving assistance from and working with family in Cyprus, but I can make no findings on the material before me.
Somewhat unusually, neither party has any superannuation. I therefore find that the asset pool in these proceedings amounts to $335,600.
Contribution
The main issue in these proceedings is contribution, both as between the parties, and the contribution of the wife’s parents on her behalf. Accordingly, it is necessary to go into some detail about these contributions in order to fully assess them.
According to the evidence of the wife, her parents, and the husband, the husband was unable to speak English when he arrived in Australia in October 1986. He worked in a fruit market as a packer (husband’s affidavit filed 24 January 2007, wife’s affidavit filed 19 February 2008). The husband also alleges that he worked in a [omitted] store during this period, and puts his earnings at this time as between $350 and $400 per week. The wife was employed full time as a shop assistant in a [omitted], and states that she continued to add to her previous savings of approximately $7,000. The husband and wife lived with the wife’s parents rent-free at this time.
Around May 1988, the parties, in conjunction with the wife’s father, purchased a takeway food business at Property G. Both the husband and wife state that the purchase price was $65,000. However, this is at odds with the purchase price as Annexure “A” to the affidavit of Mr C states that the purchase price for the business was, in fact, $60,750, as stated in Mr C’s affidavit. As Mr C’s figure is supported by the tax return for that year, I find that the purchase price was $60,750. The parties agree that the wife’s father, Mr C, contributed $40,000 to the purchase price, although the husband alleges this money was obtained by way of a mortgage over Mr and Ms C’s residence. Regardless of how the wife’s parents obtained this money, I find that they made this contribution. The wife states that she contributed $9,565.46 from her savings to the purchase, with a loan from the National Australia Bank for $16,000 providing the remainder. On these figures, there would have been money left over from the ANZ loan, however I do not think that this is relevant in determining the issue of contribution.
At this time, the husband and wife rented the flat above the shop in which they carried out their business. They both worked full-time in the business, and were assisted in this by the wife’s father, who worked on an almost full-time basis with no monetary remuneration, and her mother, who worked there on a casual basis without pay (wife’s affidavit filed 19 February 2008; Mr C’s affidavit filed 19 February 2008). The income tax return for the business for the 1988-1989 states that Mr C, the wife and the husband were all paid $9,334 in salary by the business for that year. This would appear to contradict the statements in the above affidavits regarding Mr C’s remuneration for work. In the absence of personal tax returns for any of the parties, I find that Mr C was in some way compensated for the time he worked in the business, although in his affidavit he characterises this as “drawings” from the business as opposed to salary. However, this does not substantially diminish this contribution, as the compensation was less than $10,000 for the financial year, equal to that of the husband and the wife respectively. On the evidence before me, I find that the wife’s parents contributed significantly to the business, in that the husband and wife relied on her parents’ contributions to keep the business running.
The business was sold in May 1990. The wife’s father puts the sale price as being $95,000, with $75,000 being profit, while the wife puts the sale price as $75,000, with a profit of $60,000. As nothing turns on these figures, I will not make a finding as to which is accurate. It was common ground that the wife’s parents were not repaid the $40,000 they contributed to the purchase of the business. This substantially increased the profits the parties received at sale.
During 1990 the first child of the relationship, [L], was born. At this time the husband and wife returned to again live rent-free with the wife’s parents.
The husband and wife took a lengthy vacation to Cyprus just before [L]’s first birthday, and lived off the proceeds of the sale of the business at this time. Neither party worked for the six month period they were in Cyprus, and it appears that they resided with relatives. Upon their return to Australia, they again lived rent-free with the wife’s parents.
The husband has made some allegation that the wife’s parents received monies from the business with which they purchased land in Cyprus.
I find no evidence to support this claim.
In May 1992 the husband and wife purchased two blocks of land, namely Property K and Property J, for a combined price of $97,500 (Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ to the wife’s affidavit filed 19 February 2008).
In November 1992, the husband and wife purchased a takeaway food business at Property W. The wife annexed an ANZ bank statement dated 16 December 1992 to her affidavit (Annexure ‘C’), presumably to show the amount of money spent on said business, which would on the face of that document be $54,960.59.
Both parties worked 12 hour days, seven days a week in this business. Again, the wife’s father assisted with the running of the business for no remuneration. The wife also states that she was solely responsible for all bookkeeping and paperwork for the business due to the husband’s limited English.
In January 1994 the parties sold the property at Property K for $60,000 (Annexure ‘D’ of the wife’s affidavit). These proceeds were used to partially fund the construction of a home on Property J. A further loan of $60,000 was obtained from the ANZ bank for the same purpose. This house is the former matrimonial home in which the wife and children still reside. The parties borrowed a further $25,000 to fund the purchase of a Holden Apollo motor vehicle which the wife still uses.
The wife’s father contributed to the building of the house by undertaking tiling, concreting and painting, as well as cleaning up the building site. Both the husband and the wife continued to work fulltime in the takeaway business at this time. Parties agree that the wife’s father was reimbursed for the cost of materials.
About this time, the parties purchased the business premises in which their shop was located, at Property W. The contract for the sale of land was not submitted as evidence. Rather, the wife annexed an ANZ bank statement dated September 1994 to her affidavit (Annexure ‘F’), presumably to show the amount of money spent on said property, which on the statement would be around $95,800. I make this deduction based on the fact the account is identified as being a “Fully Drawn Advance” account.
The parties’ second child, [B], was born in 1996. The wife states that she took only two weeks maternity leave, before resuming work. The wife states that she took both [L] and [B] to work with her, caring for them while working. Their third child, [C], was born in 1999.
In May 2003 the parties sold the takeaway business for $30,000 (wife’s affidavit filed 19 February 2008). The wife’s evidence is that the parties had been trying for 18 months prior to this to sell the business. The husband’s affidavit is silent as to this sale.
In August 2003, the business premises in Property W were also sold for $131,000 (Annexure “G” to the wife’s affidavit filed 19 February 2008). On the wife’s evidence these funds were then applied to pay substantial outstanding business debts. Remaining funds were applied to the mortgage over the former matrimonial home.
The husband made a trip to Cyprus in June 2003 for approximately six weeks (Affidavit of wife filed 19 February 2008; Affidavit of husband file 24 January 2007) during which time the Australian Taxation Office audited the business. The wife handled the audit alone in the husband’s absence.
The wife alleges that around 2003 the husband began to act strangely. She states that the husband was diagnosed with schizophrenia by Dr S, a neurologist. I was not provided with any reports or records that would confirm the wife’s evidence in this respect. The husband annexed to his affidavit the results of a CT Scan, performed by a Dr G, which indicated that there were some slight abnormalities in the husband’s brain. However, I am unable to conclude anything in the absence of an explanation as to the effect these slight abnormalities would have on the behaviour, and by extension his contributions to the marriage.
Given the lack of expert or medical evidence with respect to this part of the wife’s case, I am not prepared to make findings regarding the husband’s mental health. Accordingly, I have no regard to this in assessing the contributions of the parties.
The wife’s counsel in submissions asserted that the mother should be seen to have made a far greater contribution to the marriage, both in financial and non-financial areas.
Counsel submitted in the wife’s case outline that the wife brought an original contribution of $15,000 into the marriage, some of which was put towards the purchase of the first takeaway business in 1998. Along with this, it was submitted that the wife worked 12 hour days, seven days a week in both takeaway businesses, whilst being the primary caregiver of their three children. She also took responsibility for the bookkeeping involved in the running of both businesses. It was further submitted that the wife had been wholly responsible for the care of the children and the payment of the mortgage on the former matrimonial home with negligible support from the husband since the time of separation in 2004.
Furthermore it was submitted that the contributions of the wife’s parents, namely allowing the parties to live in the parents’ residence rent-free for approximately four years, the contribution to the purchase of the first business of $40,000 which was not later repaid, their work in the takeaway business for little or no remuneration, their assistance with child care needs and the wife’s father’s contribution to the building of the former matrimonial home should be taken into account when assessing the wife’s contribution.
The husband’s affidavit indicates that he believes he contributed to the marriage by working in the businesses, and occasionally contributing to living expenses while residing with the wife’s parents. His evidence appears to dispute the extent of the wife’s parents contributions.
However, the affidavit provided by the husband was not sufficiently cogent, detailed, or substantiated by supporting documents to persuade me that I should prefer his evidence, especially given his lack of participation in the proceedings. Therefore, wherever the wife’s evidence conflicts with that of the husband, I prefer the wife’s evidence on the basis that she was available for cross examination, had supporting documentation for many of her claims, and gave more detailed evidence in her affidavit.
Having examined the evidence above from both the wife and her parents, including the financial documents which were provided, it is clear that the wife made a greater contribution to the marriage, both financially and non-financially.
As previously stated, the wife and her parents provided the initial financial contributions to the marriage. It is unclear what, if any, contribution of a financial nature the husband made at this point. Throughout the marriage, the husband’s contribution to the businesses owned and operated by the parties could be assessed at no more than 30 percent of the value of those businesses, in light of the substantial contribution to the running of these businesses made by the wife and her parents, both in terms of funding the purchases and working in the businesses.
As the original business and its subsequent sale allowed the parties to purchase land and build the former matrimonial home, in light of the contributions of the wife’s father to the building of the home, I am disinclined to move from this figure as regards the husband’s financial contribution. While there is no doubt that the husband worked hard in their business, the fact is that the wife and her parents made the greater contribution.
With regards to non-financial contributions, I am satisfied that the wife has again made the greater contribution. On her evidence, she was the primary caregiver for all three children, even taking them to work with her so she could work in the business whilst caring for them. When she was not caring for them, her mother was. There is little evidence of the father making a similar contribution.
I come now to the issue of post-separation contribution. The wife has, on the evidence of both parties, been solely responsible for the care of the three children since separation in July 2004, a period of over three years. She has also been solely responsible for payment of the mortgage over the former matrimonial home. To her credit, she has done this whilst retraining, obtaining work, and living on a limited income.
The husband, on the other hand, has made a contribution of only $5,443 since separation, ostensibly as child support. I do not consider this to be significant. He has a responsibility to contribute to the support of his children, and such contribution should not be given great weight when viewed against the wife’s contributions.
Accordingly, then, in considering financial and non-financial contributions, both during the marriage and after separation, I consider that the contributions made by the mother, or on her behalf, substantially outweigh those of the husband. In percentage terms, I would place this as 80:20 in the wife’s favour.
Future Needs
As stated above, the wife, who has the care of the three children of the relationship, clearly has greater future needs than the husband. However, I must still have regard to the issues in s. 75(2) as raised in the parties’ affidavits.
The parties separated in June 2004, when the husband returned to Cyprus. He has not returned to Australia since that time, and on the evidence of both parties, has only telephone communication with the children.
Since separation, the wife has had the sole care and responsibility for the children. While [L] will turn 18 in 2008, the wife will be responsible for dependant children until [C] turns 18 in 2017. From the date of separation, this will be a period of approximately thirteen years over which the mother will have the sole care of the children. This is a significant factor which is indicative of an adjustment in the wife’s favour.
There is some dispute between the parties as to financial contributions the husband has made towards the support of the children. The wife claims the father has paid no regular child support, but gives details of sporadic payments between December 2004 and December 2006, amounting to $4147.77. The father puts forward a letter he received from the Child Support Agency dated 20 December 2005 regarding non-agency payments he has made between July 2004 and November 2005 totalling $5,443. The mother alleges that the payment of $2,923.97, recorded as being paid on 7 July 2004 by the Child Support Agency, was not paid to her. As the mother has not provided supporting documentary evidence in this regard, I am prepared to accept the statement of the Child Support Agency on this issue.
The husband alleges that he is currently employed on a casual basis, providing a document from the [Z] on a Republic of Cyprus letterhead. This letter is difficult to decipher. I am uncertain as to whether it indicates he was employed during 2005, but was receiving government unemployment benefits during 2006, or whether it indicates something entirely different. Without explanation, I am unable to rule as to the husband’s current state of employment.
The wife currently works as an [occupation omitted] with the [X], working 15 hours per week. This employment is ongoing.
The parties are in their early forties, with approximately 20 years of working life ahead of them. I consider that neither have capacity to obtain employment that would result in substantial monetary recompense. I have previously set out the current employment situations of both parties, but consider that as the wife has the care of the children, her prospects for obtaining fulltime employment may be somewhat limited. I note also that the wife receives some Centrelink benefits. As the husband does not have the care of the children, I would assess his earning capacity as being slightly higher than that of the wife.
The wife has had the sole care of all three children since mid 2004, and will continue to do so until [C] turns 18 in January 2017. It appears unlikely that the husband will contribute in any significant way to the costs of raising the two remaining minor children, as his payments to the wife in this respect have been, to date, sporadic at best. The wife has housed herself and the three children since separation in the former matrimonial home, and, under her proposal, would continue to pay the mortgage on this house. This is an entirely appropriate submission considering the circumstances of this case. I consider an adjustment in favour of the wife to reflect the ongoing cost of housing the family and caring for the children would be appropriate.
On the basis of the grounds outlined above, I therefore propose to make a further 17.5 percent adjustment in favour of the wife, giving her 97.5 percent of the assets of the parties.
Just and Equitable
I need to consider if the above division of property is just and equitable based on the entirety of the evidence before me.
Whilst the wife’s counsel submits that this may be a rare occasion in which the wife could be awarded the entirety of the assets of the parties, I do not believe this would be a just and equitable outcome. The husband did expend considerable effort in working in the parties’ businesses, and this should be recognised in the orders I make.
While 2.5 percent is not a substantial award, I believe that it is just and equitable in light of the reasons given previously. Furthermore, it takes into account the fact that the wife will be taking on a mortgage along with taking the benefit of the assets, whilst the husband will no longer be liable for any of the accumulated debts of the parties.
I have stated several times that the husband has put very limited evidence before me, and has declined to participate in these proceedings in a meaningful manner.
As such, I am satisfied that, on the evidence and submissions that have been put before me, this outcome is just and equitable.
Conclusion
The final result is that the wife is to receive 95 percent of the net assets of the parties: $335,600 x 97.5 % = $327,210.00. The husband is to receive the balance, a sum of $8,390.00.
This result will enable the wife to retain the former matrimonial home, the motor vehicles, and the household contents as sought in her application.
I am cognizant of the fact that this result may require the wife to refinance in order to make the payment. However, I believe that the small sum required to be paid to the husband means that it will be within her means to do so. I will allow 90 days for the wife to make payment to the husband.
This provides the husband with a sum which should assist in him continuing to re-establish himself in Cyprus.
This settlement should also provide to the wife a means of supporting herself and the children for the foreseeable future. As she is receiving little to no support from the husband, and is unlikely to receive any for the future, I am satisfied that it is just and equitable to make an order which allows her to provide a stable, though by no means extravagant, lifestyle for her and the children.
I note the wife’s final application contains seeks that the husband pay the wife’s costs of the application. In light of the limited funds which are to be awarded to the husband, I do not think it would be just and equitable to further diminish these funds by awarding the wife her costs. Accordingly I make no order as to costs.
I certify that the preceding seventy three (73) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Altobelli FM
Deputy Associate: Monique Robb
Date: 30 April 2008
0
2
1