SCHOPP & SCHOPP

Case [2013] FCCA 434

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCHOPP & SCHOPP [2013] FCCA 434
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application for alteration of property interests – short marriage – husband considerably older than the wife – husband bringing significant assets to the relationship – substantial amounts of money sent to the Philippines.
Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975, ss.75(2), 79(2), 79(4)
Cases cited:
Erdem & Ozsoy [2012] FMCAfam 1323
In the Marriage of Elias (1977) 29 FLR 393; (1977) 3 Fam LR 11,496;
(1977) FLC 90-267
In the Marriage of Lutzke (1979) 5 Fam LR 553
In the Marriage of Jordan (1996) 21 Fam LR 382; [1996] FamCA 15 (29 February 1996); (1997) FLC 92-736
In the Marriage of Kennon (1997) 138 FLR 118; (1997) 22 Fam LR 1; [1997] FLC 92-757
Martin & Crawley [2012] FamCA 1032
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 87 ALRJ 74; (2012) FLC 93-518; (2012) 47 Fam LR 481; (2012) 293 ALR 70; [2012] HCA 52
Thomson Brindal Ltd v McLachlan (2007) 207 LSJS 90; (2000) SASC 58
Tinker v Tinker [1970] P 136; [1970] 1 All ER 540; [1970] 2 WLR 331
Watson v Ling (2013) FamCA 57
Parkinson, Patrick Family Property Law and the Three Fundamental Propositions in Stanford v Stanford (2013) 3 Fam L Rev 80
Applicant: MS SCHOPP
Respondent: MR SCHOPP
File Number: MLC 3415 of 2012
Judgment of: Judge Riley
Hearing dates: 8 & 9 April 2013
Date of Last Submission: 9 April 2013
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 6 June 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Howe
Solicitors for the Applicant: Hughes Watson Marks Kennedy
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Young
Solicitors for the Respondent: Zeljko Stojakovic Barristers & Solicitors

ORDERS

  1. Within 30 days, the husband pay to the wife the sum of $18,351.72.

  2. Save for the purpose of enforcing any monies due under these or any subsequent orders:

    (a)each party be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all property in his or her possession;

    (b)each party forego any claims that they may have to any superannuation benefits belonging to or earned by the other;

    (c)insurance policies remain the sole property of the beneficiary thereof;

    (d)each party be solely liable for and indemnify the other against any liability encumbering any item of property to which that party is entitled pursuant to these orders; and

    (e)any joint tenancy of the parties in any real or personal property is hereby expressly severed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLC 3415 of 2012

MS SCHOPP

Applicant

And

MR SCHOPP

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is an application under s.79 of the Family Law Act 1975 for the alteration of the parties’ interests in property. 

  2. The husband and wife met in the Philippines in late April 2006.  The husband was then separated from his first wife and had two adult children.  The wife…

Continue reading SCHOPP & SCHOPP

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
SCHOPP & SCHOPP [2013] FCCA 434
Case
[2013] FCCA 434
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Schopp & Schopp*, heard before Judge Riley, the dispute concerned the division of property and financial resources between the husband and wife. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate orders to finalise their financial affairs following their separation.

The central legal issues before the court were the equitable distribution of the parties' assets and liabilities, including the treatment of superannuation entitlements, and the severance of any joint tenancies. The court was required to consider the existing property and financial resources of each party and make orders that achieved a just and equitable outcome.

Judge Riley ordered that the husband pay a specific sum to the wife within 30 days. Furthermore, the court made orders to ensure each party's sole entitlement to property in their possession, with exceptions for enforcement purposes. These orders also addressed the parties' respective claims to superannuation benefits, insurance policies, and liabilities associated with property. Crucially, the court expressly severed any joint tenancies held by the parties in real or personal property.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Within 30 days, the husband pay to the wife the sum of $18,351.72.

2.

Save for the purpose of enforcing any monies due under these or any subsequent orders:

(a) each party be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all property in his or her possession;

(b) each party forego any claims that they may have to any superannuation benefits belonging to or earned by the other;

(c) insurance policies remain the sole property of the beneficiary thereof;

(d) each party be solely liable for and indemnify the other against any liability encumbering any item of property to which that party is entitled pursuant to these orders; and

(e) any joint tenancy of the parties in any real or personal property is hereby expressly severed.

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.