Legal Research
Cases
White v Patterson

White v Patterson

Case [2008] NSWSC 1226 24 November 2008

de facto relationship

adjustment of interests in property

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: White v Patterson [2008] NSWSC 1226

HEARING DATE(S): 16/07/08, 17/07/08, 18/07/08, 21/07/08
Written submissions: 07/08/08

JUDGMENT DATE :
24 November 2008

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

DECISION: Defendant to make payment to plaintiff

CATCHWORDS: FAMILY LAW - de facto relationship - adjustment of interests in property - relationship of five years - one child born to parties during relationship - other infant children of each party forming part of household - identification of property of parties - value of property - consideration of matters relevant to parties' contributions - EQUITY - constructive trusts - money of another party may have been used to pay part of mortgage debt - whether that party thereby obtained interest in property

LEGISLATION CITED: Property (Relationships) Act 1984, ss 15(1), 17(1), 18(1), 20

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Howlett v Neilson [2005] NSWCA 149; (2005) 33 Fam LR 402
Jones v Grech [2001] NSWCA 208; (2001) 27 Fam LR 711
Kardos v Sarbutt [2006] NSWCA 11
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Paino v Paino [2008] NSWCA 276

PARTIES: Leanne Michelle White - Plaintiff
David Joseph Patterson - First Defendant
Alice Mia Vors Patterson by her tutor Evelyn Ann Eyland - Second Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3540/06

COUNSEL: Mr J R Hamilton - Plaintiff
First Defendant in person
Ms K Richardson - Second Defendant

SOLICITORS: Rice More & Gibson - Plaintiff
First Defendant in person
Second Defendant by her tutor, Ms E A Eyland

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BARRETT J

MONDAY, 24 NOVEMBER 2008

3540/06 LEANNE MICHELLE WHITE v DAVID JOSEPH PATTERSON

JUDGMENT

Preliminary

1 These are proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. The plaintiff (Leanne Michelle White) and the defendant (David Joseph Patterson) make claims against each other. Each contends that an order adjusting their interests with respect to property should be made in such a way that the other is ordered to make a payment.

2 As to jurisdictional prerequisites, it is accepted by the parties that they were both resident in New South Wales at relevant times (s 15(1)) and that they lived together in a domestic relationship for a period of not less than two years (s 17(1)). It is also accepted that the claims were brought within the time allowed by s 18(1).

The parties

3 The plaintiff was born in 1962, the defendant in 1950. The defendant had an earlier domestic relationship with Naja Vors who died in September 1994. There was a daughter, Mia, of that relationship (born 1994). The plaintiff was married to Tim White from 1983 to 1992. There were two daughters of the marriage, Eleisa (born 1983) and Ashleigh (born 1986).

4 The plaintiff and the defendant met at the University of Sydney where both worked. The plaintiff was employed in an administrative role related to human resources. She had training as a stenographer and had worked for…

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 White v Patterson

Details

AGLC: White v Patterson [2008] NSWSC 1226
Case: [2008] NSWSC 1226
Decision Date: 24 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of White v Patterson, the parties, White and Patterson, were in a de facto relationship for approximately five years during which time they had one child together and raised Patterson's other infant children in their household. They separated, and the dispute arose over the adjustment of their respective interests in the property they had acquired during their relationship. The court was required to identify the property, determine its value, and assess the contributions made by each party, including any non-financial contributions. The court also needed to consider whether a constructive trust existed over the property due to the use of the other party's money to pay part of the mortgage debt.

The court examined the nature and duration of the relationship, the contributions made by each party, and the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the property. The court found that the relationship was a de facto relationship, and the parties had contributed both financially and non-financially to the acquisition and maintenance of the property. The court assessed the value of the property and determined the extent of the parties' contributions. The court also considered whether the use of Patterson's money to pay part of the mortgage debt created a constructive trust in favour of White.

The court held that the property was held on trust for the parties in proportion to their respective contributions. The court found that White's contribution, including the use of her money to pay part of the mortgage debt, gave rise to a constructive trust in her favour. The court ordered that the property be sold and the proceeds be distributed between the parties in proportion to their respective contributions. The court also made orders for the payment of legal costs.

The final orders of the court were that the property be sold and the proceeds be distributed between the parties in proportion to their respective contributions, and that each party bear their own legal costs. The court also made orders for the payment of spousal maintenance and child support.

Orders