RIO & MCGRATH

In this matter before Judge Scarlett, the applicant wife and the respondent husband sought property settlement orders. The dispute concerned the division of the asset pool, including whether certain loans should be treated as liabilities and whether a gift received by one party constituted a contribution. The court also considered adjustments under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* and whether a proposed distribution would be just and equitable, particularly in relation to the former matrimonial home.

The court was required to determine the appropriate treatment of alleged loans claimed by one party, the classification of a gift as a contribution by the donee spouse, and the overall just and equitable distribution of the parties' property. This involved assessing the asset pool, including the former matrimonial home, and considering whether any adjustments were warranted under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* to account for future needs or other relevant factors.

Judge Scarlett reasoned that the applicant wife would be solely entitled to the former matrimonial home, subject to her paying the respondent husband a sum of $23,700.76 within three months. In the event of default, the property was to be sold by private treaty, with specific provisions for valuation and sale by auction if necessary. The proceeds of sale were to be applied first to sale costs and mortgage discharges, with the balance divided 57.5% to the applicant and 42.5% to the respondent. Each party was to retain their respective superannuation interests, bank accounts, household possessions, jewellery, and motor vehicles. The applicant was also to receive the net proceeds of a specific trust account after payment of the Independent Children's Lawyer's costs, and both parties were to indemnify each other against certain specified debts. The court also made orders regarding the execution of documents and the process for any applications for costs.