Ritchie & Debeney

In the matter of *Ritchie & Debeney*, Ms Ritchie (the applicant) and Mr Debeney (the respondent) brought their dispute before Harland J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The core of the dispute concerned the division of property following the parties' separation, with a particular focus on the matrimonial home located at B Street, Suburb C, Victoria.

The court was required to determine the appropriate distribution of the equity in the matrimonial home, considering the contributions of both parties throughout the relationship and post-separation. This involved assessing the financial and non-financial contributions made by each party, as well as considering factors relevant to section 90SF of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the parties' respective ages, future earning capacities, and health circumstances. The court also had to address the respondent's opposition to the sale of the property and the applicant's concerns regarding mortgage arrears and her credit rating.

Harland J found the respondent to be an unreliable witness, noting inconsistencies and exaggerations in his evidence, particularly concerning his attachment to the home. The court rejected the respondent's submission that his contributions should be assessed at 95%, finding that the applicant had made significant contributions during the relationship. Applying the principles from *Williams & Williams* [2007] FamCA 313, the court considered the value of assets at the time of realisation or hearing, alongside other contributions. The court determined that the equity in the property should be adjusted, with 45% allocated to the applicant and 55% to the respondent, reflecting an assessment of the applicant's contributions at 25% and a further 20% under section 90SF(3).

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant a sum of $276,035 plus half the cost of a specific invoice within 60 days. In default of this payment, the property was to be placed on the market for sale by auction. The proceeds of sale were to be disbursed in a specified order, with the applicant receiving 45% and the respondent 55% of the net proceeds after sale costs, mortgage payments, and agreed fees. The respondent was granted sole occupation of the property pending settlement, with obligations to pay all mortgage repayments, rates, taxes, and outgoings, and to indemnify the applicant in relation to these expenses. The parties were restrained from further encumbering the property. Each party was to bear their own costs.