Placido and Placido

In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Watts presided over proceedings between Mrs Placido (Applicant) and Mr Placido (Respondent). The dispute concerned competing applications for parenting orders and orders altering the property interests of the parties. While parenting issues were resolved by consent, the court was required to determine the division of the parties' financial assets and liabilities.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate division of the parties' net assets, considering their respective contributions to the acquisition, conservation, and improvement of those assets, as well as other relevant factors under section 79(4)(d) to (g) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to address the valuation and distribution of various assets, including real estate, superannuation interests, and other financial holdings, and to make orders for the payment of capital gains tax and the allocation of superannuation benefits.

Justice Watts applied a global approach to the division of assets, finding that both parties had made significant contributions over their 16-year relationship. The court accepted the wife's evidence over the husband's where there was a conflict, noting the husband's evasiveness and lack of documentary support for his financial claims. The court determined that contributions to the date of separation were equal, with an adjustment in favour of the wife for post-separation contributions, particularly her role as primary carer for the children, including one with significant medical needs. After considering all factors, the court concluded that a just and equitable division of the net assets was 67.5% to the wife and 32.5% to the husband.

The court ordered that the husband pay the wife the sum of $255,949 within six weeks. In the event of non-payment, the property at P NSW was to be sold, with specific provisions for private treaty or auction sale. The proceeds of sale were to be applied first to sale costs and the mortgage, then 82% of the balance to the wife and the remainder to the husband. The husband was also ordered to pay an occupancy fee to the wife pending sale. Further orders addressed the splitting of the husband's superannuation interest in the Family Superannuation Fund, the allocation of funds from trust accounts, and the husband's capital gains tax liability. The court also declared that other property had been divided in specie between the parties. Finally, the Registrar was appointed to execute documents on behalf of a party who refused or neglected to do so.