Sacamano & Sacamano

The case of *Sacamano & Sacamano* concerned a property settlement dispute between a husband and wife. The primary dispute revolved around the valuation and treatment of certain assets, particularly real estate held by the husband, and the appropriate adjustments to be made under sections 75(2) and 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The matter came before Coleman J.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included how to treat a property acquired by the husband under a contract with his parents, which contained a special condition for reversion to the parents upon the husband's death or disposal of any part of his interest. The court also had to consider the valuation of a business, specifically the methodology for adjusting future maintainable earnings and determining an appropriate capitalisation rate, in light of expert opinion evidence. Finally, the court needed to decide whether lump sum or periodic spousal maintenance was appropriate, and if so, on what terms, taking into account the wife's proposed recommencement of employment and any property settlement orders.

Coleman J reasoned that the husband did not have total and unfettered equitable ownership of the real estate in question due to the reversionary clause in the acquisition contract. Consequently, this property and any associated liabilities were excluded from the balance sheet, with the husband's rights under the contract being treated as a financial resource for the purposes of section 75(2). Regarding the business valuation, the court preferred an adjustment for employee costs based on actual payments rather than potential payments, and in the absence of directly comparable market sales, adopted the average of the capitalisation rates provided by the experts as a permissible "value judgment". The court found that lump sum spousal maintenance was not appropriate given the wife's ability to recommence employment and generate income, and ordered periodic spousal maintenance.

By way of property settlement, the husband was ordered to assign half the value of his share portfolio to the wife, with specific indemnities regarding capital gains tax and share liabilities. The husband was also ordered to pay the wife a further $150,000, partly in cash or proceeds of share sales by a specified date, and the balance by a later date with interest, secured as a charge over his interest in two properties. The wife's claim for lump sum spousal maintenance was dismissed, and the husband was ordered to pay interim spousal maintenance at a specified weekly rate until a future date. Costs were reserved, and parenting proceedings were to be fixed for a later date.