Trent and Rowley (No 2)

[2014] FamCA 886

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TRENT & ROWLEY (NO 2) [2014] FamCA 886

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Declaration under s 90SL because applicant is bankrupt

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Trent

RESPONDENT: Ms Rowley

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10211 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 4 July 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 4 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Korfiatis

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Webb Korfiatis

Orders

1. That pursuant to s 90SL of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), it is declared that Mr Trent and his bankrupt estate have no interest in the property at C Street, Suburb D, Victoria.

2. That all outstanding applications are otherwise dismissed.

3. That the reasons this day be transcribed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Trent & Rowley (No. 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10211 of 2011

Mr Trent

Applicant

And

Ms Rowley

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 25 June 2014, I summarily dismissed an application by Mr Trent that had been filed on 15 November 2011 seeking orders against Ms Rowley.  It was common ground that the parties had been in a de facto relationship and proceedings had been commenced in this Court in 2011 by Mr Trent seeking an alteration of the interests of the parties in property.  Specifically, what he was seeking was an alteration of the interests that the respondent had in a property at C street, Suburb D.  The evidence filed by the respondent on 14 June 2013 for the purposes of the trial was that she was the registered proprietor of that property and that she had owned it at the commencement of cohabitation.

2. The trial was part heard and adjourned at a time when Mr Trent was certainly in the throes of filing a bankruptcy petition.  He then went bankrupt.  I do not propose to repeat the basis upon which the summary dismissal order was made, but it is clear from an affidavit filed by the respondent on 28 March 2014, in annexing to that document a copy of the statement of affairs of Mr Trent, that, at the time that he went into bankruptcy, he declared that he had no assets, and therefore, I presume he claimed no interest in the property in C Street, Suburb D. 

3. At that time, there was an extant application for alteration of interests in the C Street property.  The trustee who became a part of the court process, but not necessarily joined in the process, abandoned any such claim.  In the circumstances, the position of the respondent about the ownership of that property is quite clear.  The respondent, in filing a response, sought a variety of orders which she today abandons on the basis that they are pointless.  However, there is a caveat on the title to the C Street property lodged by the applicant.

4. Because there may be some complexities about the removal of that caveat, the respondent seeks a declaration under s 78 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) that the applicant has no interest in the property. Section 90SL provides that:

   In proceedings between the parties to a de facto relationship the court may declare the title or rights, if any, that a party has in respect of the property.

5. Having regard to what I have just said and the reasons that I gave for the summary dismissal, I am satisfied that Mr Trent has no interest in the C Street property, and I make a declaration accordingly.   

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 4 July 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  15 October 2014