Sasse and Sasse - [2008] FMCAfam 477

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SASSE & SASSE

[2008] FMCAfam 477

FAMILY LAW – Property.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.75(2), 79 and 79A

Hickey & Hickey and A-G for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143
Ely & Ely [2006] FMCAfam 512
AJO v GRO [2005] FLC 93-218
In the Marriage of Farmer and Bramley [2000] FLC 93-060

Applicant:

MR SASSE

Respondent:

MS SASSE

File number:

BRC 6136 of 2007

Judgment of:

Howard FM

Hearing dates:

26, 27, 28 & 29 November 2007

Date of last submission:

27 March 2008

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

5 June 2008

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Hamwood

Solicitors for the Applicant:

SJP Law

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr George

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Pippa Colman & Associates

ORDERS

I direct that the parties file and serve a proposed final order to reflect these Reasons for Judgment by no later than 4.00 p.m. on 12 June 2008.
I direct that in the event that the parties are unable to reach agreement as to the terms of the order the matter shall be relisted for further mention on 18 June 2008 at 9.00 a.m.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Sasse & Sasse is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRC 6136 of 2007

MR SASSE

Applicant

And

MS SASSE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The Applicant husband is Mr Sasse, born in 1954.
The Respondent wife is Ms Sasse born in 1956.
The parties married in 1976.
The parties have two adult children, [A] (born in 1979) and [B] (born in 1980).
I accept the wife’s evidence and find that the parties separated on a final basis in early January 2001.
The parties cannot agree on how to divide their property.
On 2 May 2002 final consent orders were made dealing with the property of the parties. On 11 May 2007 the consent order dated

2 May 2002
was set aside by consent. In circumstances where the parties both consented to the setting aside of the earlier property settlement order I consider it appropriate to make another order under s.79 of the Family Law Act 1975 in substitution for the order that was set aside by consent (note s.79A(1A) of the Family Law Act1975).
I am satisfied that the question of property settlement should be reconsidered.

The four step approach

The well known four step approach must be followed[1]. The four steps are:-
a)What is the net asset pool of the parties?
b)How did each party contribute to that pool?
c)The parties’ current financial and family circumstances and what are their needs both now and in the future?
d)The requirement that the order be just and equitable.
[1] These four main issues to be determined by the Court reflect the well known four step approach in cases concerning s.79 of the Family Law Act (1975). In particular note Hickey & Hickey…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sasse and Sasse

Details

AGLC: Sasse and Sasse [2008] FMCAfam 477
Case: [2008] FMCAfam 477
Decision Date: 5 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, Sasse and Sasse brought forth a matter concerning the division of their matrimonial property. The central dispute was the valuation and classification of a family business, which played a significant role in their overall assets. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate division of the assets between the parties in accordance with the principles set out in the Family Law Act.

The primary legal issue was the valuation of the family business and its classification as matrimonial or separate property. The court had to consider various factors, including the contributions of each party to the business, the nature of the business, and the circumstances under which the assets were acquired. The court also needed to determine the extent to which the business was a matrimonial asset and, if so, the appropriate division of that asset.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented by both parties regarding their contributions to the business. It found that both parties had made significant contributions to the establishment and growth of the business. However, the court determined that the business was primarily a matrimonial asset due to the contributions of both parties and the nature of the business. The court concluded that the business should be valued at a particular amount and divided equally between the parties, with each receiving 50% of the business's value. Additionally, the court ordered that the parties file and serve a proposed final order to reflect these reasons for judgment by a specified date. If the parties could not reach an agreement, the matter would be relisted for further mention.

Orders

Orders of the court

I direct that the parties file and serve a proposed final order to reflect these Reasons for Judgment by no later than 4.00 p.m. on 12 June 2008.

I direct that in the event that the parties are unable to reach agreement as to the terms of the order the matter shall be relisted for further mention on 18 June 2008 at 9.00 a.m.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.