Stenberg v Lechowics - [2010] NSWSC 926

CITATION: Stenberg v Lechowics [2010] NSWSC 926

HEARING DATE(S): 11/08/10, 12/08/10

JUDGMENT DATE :
1 November 2010

JURISDICTION: Equity Divison

JUDGMENT OF: Macready AsJ at 1

DECISION: I direct the parities to bring in short minutes.

CATCHWORDS: Family Law. Application for adjustment of parties' property interests pursuant to s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. Defendant charges all his interests in jointly owned properties. Order made for adjustment.

PARTIES:
LYNETTE MARY STENBERG v STANISLAW RYSZARD LECHOWICS

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/288199

COUNSEL: Ms E Elbourne for plaintiff
Defendant in person
Miss Richards for the second cross-defendant

SOLICITORS: Ian Foulsham & Geddes for plainiff

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Associate Justice Macready

Monday 1 November 2010

2009/288199 LYNETTE MARY STENBERG v STANISLAW RYSZARD LECHOWICS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) (Relationships) (‘the Act’) in which the plaintiff seeks an adjustment of property interests pursuant to s 20 of the Act.

2 The parties lived in a de facto relationship from July 1993 until the end of 1995 when they separated and ceased cohabitation. In May 2000, they recommenced cohabitation when they again lived in a de facto relationship (apart from a short break of 9 months) until April 2008. The de facto relationship is not in dispute.

3 There are no children from the relationship or children who were cared for during the period of the relationship. The plaintiff has an adult daughter, Alessia Richards.

Chronology

4 The plaintiff was born in October 1945 and the defendant in January 1953. In 1979, the plaintiff purchased a property at Paddington for $59,500.

5 The parties commenced their relationship in July 1993 when they lived at plaintiff’s Paddington property. That relationship ended when they ceased cohabitation at the end of 1995.

6 Between 1997 and 2000, the plaintiff was engaged and then married to Nicholas Hough and they lived at the plaintiff’s Paddington property.

7 In 2000, at the end of the plaintiff’s marriage to Mr Hough, the plaintiff purchased a property at Goulburn Street, Surry Hills for $320,000 that was financed by a mortgage to Westpac Bank.

8 In May 2000, the parties commenced cohabitation at the Surry Hills property.

9 In September 2000, the parties purchased a property at Flood Street Leichhardt as joint tenants for $425,000. They borrowed $505,000 from Westpac with a loan secured on the plaintiff’s Paddington property and on the Leichhardt property.

10 In November 2000, the parties moved to the Leichhardt property.

11 In October 2001, the plaintiff sold the Paddington property and from the proceeds of sale, she paid out half of mortgage on the Leichhardt property, namely, $252,500. The arrangement between them was that thereafter the defendant would meet the mortgage payments on the balance owing.

12 Between October 2000 and May 2002, the plaintiff loaned $130,000 to defendant. The defendant suggests that the amount was $139,000 which has been repaid. The parties are at issue…

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 Stenberg v Lechowics

Details

AGLC: Stenberg v Lechowics [2010] NSWSC 926
Case: [2010] NSWSC 926
Decision Date: 1 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stenberg v Lechowics, the applicants sought an adjustment of their property interests under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. The applicants, who were in a de facto relationship, sought an adjustment of their respective interests in properties they jointly owned. The defendant, who had previously charged his interests in the properties, opposed the application. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the applicants were entitled to an adjustment of their property interests under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 and, if so, what orders should be made to effect such adjustment. The court was required to consider the circumstances of the relationship, the contributions made by each party, and the effect of the defendant charging his interests in the properties. The court also had to determine whether the charging of the interests had any impact on the applicants' entitlement to an adjustment.

The court found that the applicants were entitled to an adjustment of their property interests under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. The court noted that the applicants had made significant contributions to the relationship and to the acquisition and maintenance of the properties. The court also found that the charging of the defendant's interests in the properties did not affect the applicants' entitlement to an adjustment. The court ordered that the applicants' interests in the properties be adjusted to reflect their respective contributions to the relationship.

The court ordered that the defendant's interests in the properties be released from the charges and that the applicants' interests in the properties be adjusted accordingly. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the applicants' legal costs. The applicants were thus able to secure an adjustment of their property interests, which reflected their respective contributions to the relationship and the properties.

Orders