Truman and Truman

In *Truman & Truman*, the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the wife for lump sum spousal and child maintenance, payment of maintenance arrears, and legal costs. The husband opposed these orders. The proceedings involved complex financial matters, including disputed child support payments and spousal maintenance arrears, as well as allegations by the wife regarding the husband's attempts to shelter assets.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the wife had demonstrated a need for spousal and child maintenance, and whether the husband had the capacity to pay the amounts sought. The Court was also required to determine the accuracy of the wife's calculations for maintenance arrears, which included claims for shortfalls in child support and unpaid spousal maintenance. Furthermore, the wife sought orders for significant lump sum payments and legal costs, which the husband contested.

Justice Fowler noted that the wife's claims for arrears were based on her calculations, which the husband disputed. While the husband conceded he had not paid spousal maintenance since November 2011, he denied any short payment of child support, asserting an overpayment. The Court considered evidence from previous proceedings, including an affidavit by the husband in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which the wife argued indicated an intention to shelter assets. However, the Court found no conclusive evidence that assets had been hidden or that the husband possessed undeclared income or resources, stating that such a conclusion might change as the case progressed. The Court also considered the husband's lifestyle and expenditure, noting his assertion that overseas travel was funded by frequent flyer points.

Ultimately, the wife's application for lump sum spousal and child maintenance was dismissed. The husband was ordered to pay $200 per week towards quantified child support arrears and accrued spousal maintenance arrears until further order or repayment. The wife's application for legal costs was also dismissed, with the costs of the application reserved.