Turay & Nagi
[2023] FedCFamC2F 720
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Turay & Nagi [2023] FedCFamC2F 720
File number(s): PAC 3777 of 2022 Judgment of: JUDGE NEWBRUN Date of judgment: 15 June 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Just and equitable Orders made. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 79(2), 106A Cases cited: Lotta & Lotta [2017] FamCA 50 Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 83 Date of hearing: 29–30 May 2023 Place: Parramatta Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Lipert Solicitor for the Respondent: Dehsabzi Lawyers ORDERS
PAC 3777 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS TURAY
Applicant
AND: MR NAGI
Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE NEWBRUN
DATE OF ORDER:
15 June 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Subject to Order 2 below, the wife do all such acts and things and sign all necessary documents so as to transfer to the husband her right title and interest in the former matrimonial home situated at B Street, Suburb C (“the property”);
2.That contemporaneously with the transfer set out in Order 1 above:
(a)the husband do all such acts and things and sign all necessary documents so as to refinance the mortgage loan over the property into his sole name,
(b)the parties do all such acts and things and sign all necessary documents so as to discharge the mortgage on the property,
(c)the husband pay to the wife the sum of $396,796.
3.That in the event that the husband is unable to refinance the mortgage loan over the property into his sole name within six weeks of these Orders, the husband and wife forthwith do all such things and sign all deeds, documents and instruments as maybe necessary to effect a private sale of the property.
4.That upon the sale of the property, the proceeds of the sale be distributed in the following priorities:
(a)Discharge of the mortgage loan over the property;
(b)Payment of all sales expenses and costs associated with the sale of the property including agent fees and legal fees;
(c)Payment to the wife of $396,796 less her half share of the fees in (b) above;
(d)Payment to the husband of $477,331 less his half share of the fees in (b) above.
5.Subject to the above Orders, that the parties retain all their right title and interest in and to their respective superannuation entitlements and any other property in their respective possession, custody or control.
6.That in the event that either party or neglects to execute any deed or instrument, the Registrar of the Court be appointed pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975, to execute such deed or instrument in the name of such party and to do all the acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation to the deed or instrument.
7.Each party has liberty to apply in relation to the implementation or enforcement of these Orders upon 14 days’ notice.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Turay & Nagi has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE NEWBRUN:
INTRODUCTION
These are Reasons for Judgment relating to a final property hearing held before the Court on 29 and 30 May 2023.
PROPOSALS
The wife, by her Initiating Application, sought orders in the following terms:
1.the Honourable Court Orders arrangement to be made for selling the matrimonial property.
2.the Applicant respectfully requested 70% of the money from proceeding the sale after dispose of the mortgage and agent/government duties paid.
3.the applicant respectfully requests 5% extra for alimony/maintenance as she has disability and is unable to work full time.
(As per original)
Counsel for the husband, in closing submissions, sought an overall division of the property pool of 60 per cent to the husband and 40 per cent to the wife.
MATERIAL RELIED UPON
The wife relied upon the following documents:
(a)Her Initiating Application filed 12 July 2022;
(b)Her affidavits filed:
(i)18 July 2022;
(ii)2 August 2022;
(iii)26 September 2022;
(iv)30 April 2023.
(c)Her Financial Statement filed 30 April 2023;
(d)Her Case Outline filed 25 May 2023.
The husband relied upon the following documents:
(a)His affidavits filed:
(i)14 September 2022;
(ii)19 September 2022;
(iii)21 April 2023;
(iv)28 May 2023.
(b)Affidavit of Ms D, the husband’s mother, filed 16 September 2022;
(c)His Financial Statement filed 21 April 2023;
(d)His Case Outline filed 28 May 2023.
The exhibits were as follows:
(a)Exhibit A: Westpac bank transaction records;
(b)Exhibit B: NAB statement.
EVIDENCE
The Court has considered the documentary material relied upon by the parties discussed above, the parties’ oral evidence, and the oral evidence of the husband’s mother.
The standard of proof applied by the Court in respect to the evidence is the balance of probabilities. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the evidence. Relevant evidence relating to the issues to be determined will be set out below and under the headings “Balance sheet”, “Contributions”, and “Section 75(2)”. Where there is any conflict between the evidence referred to below and in those sections of these Reasons, the evidence under the headings “Balance sheet”, “Contributions” and “Section 75(2)” shall take precedence.
Both the wife and the husband were satisfactory witnesses in that they sought to give responsive answers to questions asked of them.
Oral evidence of the wife
The wife stated that the parties’ property at E Street, Suburb F (“the E Street, Suburb F property”) was purchased in about 2013 for $640,000. The deposit was about $62,000 and came from the parties’ savings (the Court observes from a NAB bank statement (Exhibit B) it would appear that the parties obtained a mortgage loan from NAB to pay the balance of the purchase price). The parties lived in the E Street, Suburb F property for about seven years.
Later the parties purchased a home and land package at B Street, Suburb C for $700,000 (“the B Street, Suburb C property”). Initially the parties made progress payments in relation to this property as the home was built.
The wife was questioned as to how the parties afforded to maintain mortgage loans for both the E Street, Suburb F and B Street, Suburb C properties. The wife stated that the parties utilised equity in the E Street, Suburb F property of $170,000 in relation to the purchase of land for the B Street, Suburb C property. She stated that the sale proceeds from two properties in Country G were utilised to reduce the parties’ bank mortgage loan relating to the B Street, Suburb C property. The wife could not say what the proceeds of sale of the properties in Country G amounted to. She stated that through the above sources of funds, the financial pressure upon the parties was relieved. The wife stated that the properties in Country G could not be held in both parties’ names but had to be in the husband’s name. She stated that the husband had received cash from the sale of the properties in Country G and he then opened up a bank account with Bank H in his name. The wife stated that the parties had utilised cash saved by them in Australia to purchase the properties in Country G.
The wife denied that the husband’s family had offered financial assistance in the form of a loan to the parties.
The wife stated that the sale price of the E Street, Suburb F property in 2020 was $1,080,000 with the mortgage debt at that time being over $700,000. She confirmed that the mortgage debt for the E Street, Suburb F property in March 2017 was about $725,000. She stated that in 2017 the parties refinanced the NAB mortgage loan debt for the E Street, Suburb F property, transferring that loan to Westpac.
The wife confirmed that the total sale proceeds from the sale of the E Street, Suburb F property were $385,955 ($297,008 plus $88,947) as referred to in the Westpac statement number 5, page 3 of 7, annexed to the wife’s affidavit filed 30 April 2023.
The wife stated that the $82,500 deposit into the above Westpac account on 17 May 2021 did not relate to the sale of the E Street, Suburb F property but was simply funds of the parties returned to them by a real estate agent in relation to an unrelated proposed investment (and see the related prior withdrawal of $80,500 by the parties’ on 10 May 2021 in the above bank statement).
In relation to the withdrawal of $169,684.40 paid to the husband on 7 June 2021, and referred to in the above Westpac bank statement, the wife stated that she had transferred this sum to the husband because the husband had told her that the E Street, Suburb F property belonged to him and he had requested her to pay this sum to him. She complied with this request. Later the wife stated to the Court that she had gone to Westpac on about 7 June 2021 and requested them to transfer to the husband’s Bank H account the sum of $169,684.40.
The wife denied ever seeking financial support from the husband’s family. She denied that she had received any financial assistance from the husband’s family.
The wife stated that whatever cash may have come in from the husband’s family in Country G, the husband had never let her know.
The wife stated that presently she is working full-time on normal duties as a health care worker.
The wife confirmed that she and the children left the former matrimonial home at B Street, Suburb C in February 2022. She took with her only her personal belongings, some beds, a freezer and a dryer. She stated that about six months prior to February 2022, the husband had left the former matrimonial home to live with his mother.
The wife denied that the husband had provided any financial assistance to herself or the children since their separation.
The wife stated that she withdrew $23,000 from her superannuation account in October 2022 to fund a medical operation for herself.
Oral evidence of the husband
The husband stated that in 2017 he had brought in money for the family. He stated that this was not the first time he brought in money, and that in 2013 he had sold land and also brought in money at that time.
The husband was questioned in relation to his allegation that after receiving $169,000 from his mother he deposited it into the home loan account at Westpac. He was asked whether he had any evidence in relation to that alleged deposit. The husband stated that his mother had sent cash money here. He stated that on two occasions, he had attended a place (the husband referred to an “exchange currency” place) to pick up the cash; on one occasion he had attended with the wife and on another with his daughter. He stated in this context that he had at one point received a discrete sum of $100,000 cash. He stated he decided to put the cash into an account in his name. He stated that he expended this money on behalf of the family including for “lot of things inside the home”.
The Court questioned the husband in relation to the accuracy of paragraph 53 of his affidavit filed 14 September 2022, in which he had stated that after he received the alleged loan monies of $169,000 from his mother in about 2017 he had deposited those monies into the home loan account at Westpac. The husband stated that paragraph 53 was incorrect, because his English was not good and there had been a misunderstanding with his lawyers.
In re-examination the husband stated that two days after he ascertained that the wife had caused the sum of $169,684.40 to be transferred to his Bank H account on 7 June 2021, he caused that same sum of money to be transferred back to “[his home loan]”.
He stated that there had been two occasions when money had been transferred by his parents relating to the sale of their property. He stated that his parents had tried to help the parties in relation to “big mistake bought an invest home” (which the Court infers is a reference to the B Street, Suburb C property) and “they found out I have got an operation and they found out I’m sick with that problem.”
He stated that his parents had transferred monies in cash on two occasions.
Evidence of the husband’s mother
This witness swore an affidavit and gave oral evidence in relation to an alleged loan by herself to the parties in about November 2017.
In her affidavit she stated that she had travelled to Country G in September 2017 and whilst in Country G she and her husband decided to sell their property “to help my children who are having financial crisis”.
The witness, in her affidavit, alleged:
12.Whilst I was in [Country G], my son and [Ms Turay] both telephoned me and they said that whatever money I can send them would be helpful. Both of them agreed that whatever amount I will be sending was loaned to them. [Ms Turay] agreed and was grateful and she said they will pay me whenever I needed that money.
13.My son [Mr Nagi] was worried about me the sending because the amount was big and he suggested to break into 2. Therefore, I sent the money to Australia for my son and [Ms Turay] through [Bank J] system. The first transaction was on 05 November 2017 in the amount of 531,000,000.00 and the second transaction was in the amount of 400,000,000.00 on 11 November 2017. A copy of the transaction documents are attached and marked as Annexures "-2" and "-3".
14.I confirm that my son and daughter in law have received the money I loaned to them while I was in [Country G].
15.I demanded for the payment of the loan which at that time equivalent to $169,000.00 AUD and I confirm that remains unpaid.
(As per original)
The above Annexures were translated documents from the Bank K dated 5 November 2017 and 11 November 2017 indicating withdrawals and deposits from that bank (specifically, from an account held by the husband’s mother) with the deposits made to a third party named Mr L.
In the witness’ oral evidence, she sought to maintain that she had loaned monies to the parties’ and strenuously refuted the wife’s cross-examination of her to the effect that the witness had not lent monies to the husband and wife as alleged by her.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
In Lotta & Lotta [2017] FamCA 50 Foster J stated:
281 The approach to the determination of an application under s 79 of the Act is set out in Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 and further considered by the Full Court in Bevan & Bevan [2014] FamCAFC 19, Chapman & Chapman (2014) FLC 93–592 and Scott & Danton [2014] FamCAFC 203.
282The Court must identify the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties’ in the property, the liabilities and financial resources of the parties’ at the time of the hearing and then whether it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order.
283Such a consideration should not be guided by an assumption that the parties’ rights to or interests in property are or should be different from those that then exist. The question is whether those rights and interests should be altered.
284There is no presumption that one or other party has the right to have the property of the parties’ divided between them or a right to an interest in marital property that is fixed by reference to the various matters in s 79(4). The Court needs to conclude that it would be unjust or unfair to leave property rights intact under s 79(2) of the Act.
285In many cases this requirement is readily satisfied where the parties’ are no longer in a marital or de facto relationship and, thus, for example, the common ownership or use of property by husband and wife will no longer be possible or the express or implicit assumptions that underpinned existing property arrangements such as the accumulation of assets or financial resources by one for the benefit of both have been brought to an end with the relationship.
286In particular, such a circumstance arises where both parties’ seek property adjustment orders but are unable to agree as to same. Here the wife seeks an order for adjustment of property and the husband contends that there should be no such adjustment.
287It is thus important to ascertain the present property and resources of the parties’ so as to facilitate a consideration of the s 79(2) question.
288In some circumstances it is not possible to determine whether it is just and equitable to make adjustment orders as to the parties’ present property rights without a consideration of s 79 (4) matters.
289Section 79(4) requires a consideration of the contributions made by the parties’ as defined in s 79(4)(a) to (c). The Court must then consider s 79(4)(d) to (g) in particular the subjective considerations as to the parties’ by having regard to the provisions of s 75(2) in so far as they are relevant (s 79(4)(e)).
290The Court can then consider the “justice and equity” of the actual orders to be made: Russell & Russell (1999) FLC 92–877; Teal & Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120, in the context of the Court’s obligation to make “appropriate orders” as provided for in s 79(1) of the Act.
BALANCE SHEET
The balance sheet of the husband is now set out. The wife disputed the existence of item 6 but otherwise did not dispute that the husband’s figures were correct:
BALANCE SHEET Ownership Description Value Assets 1 J B Street, Suburb C NSW $1,150,000.00 2 H Motor Vehicle 1 $21,000.00 3 H Motor Vehicle 2 $14,000.00 Total $1,185,000.00 Liabilities 4 H Westpac Flexi-Loan $6,286.64 5 J Mortgage attached to B Street, Suburb C property $275,872.98
6 J Loan from the husband’s parents $169,000.00 Total $451,159.62 Superannuation Member Name of Fund Value 7 H Super Fund 1 $129,089.41 8 W Super Fund 2 $143,537.62 Total $272,627.03 Net Total Assets Total $1,006,467.41
As to item 4, the husband’s Westpac flexi-loan in the sum of $6,286.64, there is no relevant evidence as to this sum of money being a matrimonial debt and it shall be removed from the balance sheet.
As to item 6, the husband’s alleged loan from his parents in the sum of AUD $169,000, the husband contends that the parties, in about 2017, verbally requested that his mother lend to the parties monies to assist them with their home loan, and that such monies were in fact loaned to the parties by the husband’s mother in 2017. The wife rejects these contentions and gave evidence to that effect.
In relation to this alleged loan, disputed by the wife, the Court observes that there were no objective bank records introduced into evidence indicating that such alleged loan monies were paid to the parties. Likewise, there were no objective bank records from which the Court could infer that the wife was likely aware of such alleged loan monies having been paid to the parties by the husband’s mother or anyone on her behalf.
The Court finds that the husband’s mother, in early November 2017, in two separate transactions at that time, deposited the equivalent of about AUD $169,000 into the account of a third party being Mr L. In this context, the Court observes that the reference by the husband in his oral evidence to a sum of $100,000 does not appear to clearly equate to either of the two sums of money deposited by his mother into the account of Mr L. There was no evidence adduced by the husband from Mr L.
The Court is not persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that:
(a)the wife was ever a party to a loan request to the husband’s mother in 2017 (or at any time during the parties’ relationship);
(b)the husband’s mother loaned monies to the parties in 2017 (or at any time during the parties’ relationship);
(c)the wife was ever aware of such alleged loan monies having been paid to the parties or either of them by the husband’s mother or anyone on her behalf in 2017 (or at any time during the parties’ relationship);
(d)the alleged loan monies were paid to the parties or either of them in 2017 (or at any time during the parties’ relationship).
If the Court be incorrect in not finding that the husband received monies from his mother in 2017 (or at any time during the parties’ relationship), then it would nevertheless find that it is not persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that the husband spent any such monies on behalf of the family as alleged by him.
Accordingly, item 6 shall be removed from the balance sheet.
The final balance sheet accordingly will be as follows:
BALANCE SHEET Ownership Description Value Assets 1 J B Street, Suburb C NSW $1,150,000.00 2 H Motor Vehicle 1 $21,000.00 3 H Motor Vehicle 2 $14,000.00 Total $1,185,000.00 Liabilities 4 J Mortgage attached to B Street, Suburb C property $275,872.98 Total $275,872.98 Superannuation Member Name of Fund Value 5 H Super Fund 1 $129,089.41 6 W Super Fund 2 $143,537.62 Total $272,627.03 Net Total Assets Total $1,181,754.05
From the above, it can be seen that the parties’ net assets including superannuation are $1,181,754.
SECTION 79(2) OF THE ACT
The Court is satisfied that it is just and equitable in this case to alter the property interests of the parties, in light of the breakdown of their relationship, the fact that they will no longer have the joint use and enjoyment of their property, and the fact that the continuance of the current legal ownership of their property would not afford them justice and equity.
CONTRIBUTIONS
The parties’ relationship commenced in about 1997 in Country G and continued until about February 2022.
The parties arrived in Australia in 1999.
Neither party had significant assets at the commencement of the relationship.
The parties have one adult child, born in 2003 and presently aged 19, and one child, born in 2006 and presently aged 16.
The wife became a health care worker in 2003. The husband began work as a transport worker in 2004.
The wife finished her health care studies in 2010 and then became a health care worker; she had worked in employment and performed parenting duties during such studies.
During the parties’ relationship, they had purchased the E Street, Suburb F Property for the sum of $640,000. It was sold in about early 2021. On 24 March 2021 the parties received into their joint bank account a sum of $297,008, and on 26 March 2021 they received the deposit of $88,947 (the total of the two receipts being $385,955).
On 7 June 2021, the wife transferred to the husband’s Bank H account the sum of $169,684 from the parties’ joint Westpac deposit account. It was common ground between the parties that shortly thereafter the husband paid those monies back into the parties’ joint Westpac mortgage loan offset account (being a separate account to the parties’ joint Westpac deposit account).
During the parties’ relationship and after purchasing the E Street, Suburb F property, the parties purchased the B Street, Suburb C property for $700,000; it was a land and home package.
The husband had purchased two properties in Country G with the source of funds for the purchase of those properties being the parties’ savings during their relationship. The properties were later sold and the proceeds of sale were utilised by the parties to reduce the parties’ bank mortgage loan relating to the B Street, Suburb C property.
During the parties’ relationship, on balance, the parties shared household expenses including mortgage loan repayments.
During the parties’ relationship, on balance, they made approximately equal contributions as homemakers and parents. The husband’s mother provided significant childcare during the parties’ relationship.
On 8 June 2021, the wife transferred the sum of $9,684.40 from the parties’ joint Westpac deposit account to herself.
Post-separation, the wife rented premises. Both children reside with her.
Post-separation, the husband has usually lived with his mother in her residence. He has not spent time with either of the children since separation. Thus, since separation to date the wife has been the younger child’s sole carer.
The husband contended that during the parties’ relationship, the parties’ contributions were approximately equal. The wife contended that during such period the relationship her contributions outweighed those of the husband.
Taking into account the above matters, and viewing the parties’ overall contributions holistically, the Court assesses the parties’ contributions to the net relationship assets of $1,181,754 to be about equal.
SECTION 75(2) OF THE ACT
The husband is aged 52 years, and the wife 47 years.
The parties’ children are aged 16 and 19 years. They live with the wife. The children spend no time with the husband. The husband pays no child support (see his Financial Statement filed 21 April 2023). The eldest adult child attends university (health care studies, with the wife informing the Court that the eldest adult child would like to work as a health professional) and is also dependant on the wife, albeit that the wife informed the Court that the eldest adult child has just obtained a part-time job in health care.
The wife works as a health care worker and is in full time employment.
The wife asserts she suffers from a back condition and annexes a Pain Specialist’s report dated 11 September 2022 stating that she had a seven-day inpatient treatment in about September 2022. Her GP letter dated 27 June 2022 states that she is suffering from back pain with radiation of pain to the legs and is on light duties for 24 hours a week. Her GP letter dated 8 February 2023 refers to the wife’s back pain with radiculopathy for the last 2.5 years and states that prognosis is guarded and she might need surgery in the future. Whilst there is no health professional evidence adduced by the wife to clearly indicate that by reason of her back condition she is likely to suffer a reduction in her work capacity, nevertheless the Court takes into account the above health matters.
The Court finds that the wife had reasonably withdrawn about $21,000 from her superannuation asset fund for a medical condition and related surgery. The wife’s GP’s short letter dated 8 February 2023 states the wife “had to get money out of her superannuation for medical reason.” The superannuation fund’s letter of 9 November 2022 refers to their approval of the wife’s application for payment of superannuation on specified compassionate grounds in the sum of net $21,000.
The husband works as a transport worker in full time employment.
The husband was diagnosed with diabetes in 2019. His treating neurologist’s letter dated 10 May 2022 refers to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. He asserts that he has a vision problem. He asserts in his affidavit filed 14 September 2022 that by reason of this vision problem, and because he was of “high sugar level”, he started diabetes maintenance in July 2022. He annexes to an affidavit copies of prescription medication for the diabetes. The husband asserts that as he is a transport worker, and his vision is crucial to his current job, and if his vision is affected for the longer term at his age, he does not know what job he can start looking for. He asserts he does not have the education to help him change his job.
The husband was diagnosed with a medical condition in 2021; his treating neurologist’s letter dated 8 December 2022 states, inter alia, that the husband is affected by persistent neurological symptoms. The report letter states further that the husband is on high efficacy therapy which is designed to halt relapses and new radiological disease activity but does not stop progression of disability or cure the disease. The report letter states that it is likely that the husband will receive this medication for at least the next 10 years, perhaps longer. The husband annexes to his affidavits some previous medication prescription documents including related tax invoices.
Whilst there is no health professional evidence adduced by the husband to indicate clearly that by reason of his medical condition and diabetes conditions he is likely to suffer a reduction in his work capacity, the Court takes into account the above health matters which are of concern.
The wife sought an adjustment under section 75(2) of the Act of 5 per cent by reason of her contended back issue and future care of the child. The husband sought a 10 per cent adjustment in his favour.
The Court, on balance, and taking into account the above matters, determines that there should be an adjustment for s 75(2) factors in the husband’s favour of 2.5 per cent. Thus the adjusted contributions finding overall division of the property pool will be 52.5 per cent to the husband and 47.5 per cent to the wife. With the net property pool being $1,181,754, such adjusted contributions finding results in the wife receiving $561,333 and the husband $620,420 representing a disparity of $59,087.
JUSTICE AND EQUITY
Pursuant to the Court’s adjusted contributions finding above, the husband should be left with assets representing, in value, 52.5 per cent of the net assets, being $620,420.
The wife will be entitled to 47.5 per cent of the net assets, a sum of $561,333.
The Court will afford the husband an opportunity to retain the B Street, Suburb C property in view of the Orders he sought in his Response filed 14 September 2022.
Should the husband retain:
(a)The B Street, Suburb C property: $1,150,000;
(b)His Motor Vehicle 2: $14,000;
(c)His superannuation: $129,089;
totalling $1,293,089,
less the B Street, Suburb C mortgage debt: $275,872,
leaving net $1,017,217.
And should the wife retain:
(a)The Motor Vehicle 1: $21,000;
(b)Her superannuation: $143,537;
totalling $164,537,
then the husband will need to pay the wife the sum of $396,796 ($561,333 less $164,537). The husband should be given six weeks to pay this sum to the wife, failing which the B Street, Suburb C property should be sold.
The Court now turns to what should occur if the B Street, Suburb C property is sold.
Should the wife retain:
(a)The Motor Vehicle 1: $21,000;
(b)Her superannuation: $143,537;
totalling $164,537,
then the wife will need to receive cash of $396,796 ($561,333 less $164,537). Such cash can be paid to the wife from the net proceeds of sale of the B Street, Suburb C property. With such cash the wife can possibly purchase real estate or invest such sum and rent accommodation.
Should the husband retain:
(a)His Motor Vehicle 2: $14,000,
(b)His superannuation: $129,089,
totalling $143,089,
then the husband will need to receive cash of $477,331 (being $620,420 less $143,089). Such cash can be paid from the net sale proceeds of the B Street, Suburb C property. With such cash he can possibly purchase real estate or invest such sum and rent accommodation.
The Court is of the view that its proposed property adjustment orders will represent a just and equitable property settlement between the parties.
The Court makes Orders accordingly.
I certify that the preceding eighty-three (83) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Newbrun. Deputy Associate:
Dated: 15 June 2023
0
5
0