Vesna Kosanovic v Aleksa Lazic

VESNA KOSANOVIC V ALEKSA LAZIC
[2011] ACTSC 52 (30 March 2011)

FAMILY LAW – de facto relationship – property interests – adjustment ordered

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 79

Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT), ss 3, 10 – 15, 19(2)
De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (NSW)

Supreme Court Rules 2006 (ACT)

Ferris v Winslade [1998] ACTSC 173; (1998) 22 Fam LR 725
Clauson v Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595

No.  SC 835 of 2004

Judge:              Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:               30 March 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )  No.  SC 835 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

BETWEEN:VESNA KOSANOVIC

Plaintiff

AND:ALEKSA LAZIC

Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  30 March 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

the defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $170,000.00.

1. This is a claim for relief under section 15 of the Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT). The parties lived together in a de facto relationship from 1995 or 1996 until 2002. They have a daughter who is almost eleven. The plaintiff, born in 1964 and now forty-six, has two older children from a marriage dissolved before she and the defendant lived together. She says that the defendant lived with her from about June 1996. The defendant says that the domestic relationship commenced in 1995.

1. At the commencement of the relationship, the plaintiff owned three houses, one at Kambah which she still owns, and others at Gordon and Greenway. She lived in the house at Kambah, and had tenants in the others. There was a mortgage over the Greenway property to secure a bank loan. The other houses were unencumbered. She also had shares worth about $20,000.00. The plaintiff had acquired the properties as a result of property orders made in the Family Court of Australia following the dissolution of her previous marriage.

1. The plaintiff and her children moved to Sydney to live with her sister during 1997, but maintained a close personal relationship with the defendant, who travelled regularly to Sydney to spend weekends with her.

1. At the end of 1997 the defendant asked her to move back to Canberra with the children and to live at his house in Lyneham. The defendant works in the building industry and was in the process of building the house. It appears to have been barely habitable, with no kitchen or bathroom, when the plaintiff and her children moved in. By the time of the hearing it was still incomplete and no certificate for fitness for occupancy and use had been issued.

1. At the start of the relationship the defendant also had a half interest in a house at Bonython, subject to a substantial mortgage. The house was sold during 1997. The defendant says that he received $38,000.00 from this sale, which went into improvements to the Lyneham house and living expenses.

1. The plaintiff says that she took out a $30,000.00 loan before moving back to Canberra, which was mainly applied towards improvements to the Lyneham…