YARBER & YARBER

In the matter of YARBER & YARBER, Judge Burchardt of the Family Court of Australia considered a property dispute between a husband and wife. The husband had sought an adjournment of the property proceedings, which the court deemed wholly inappropriate and refused. The matter proceeded by submissions only, as neither party sought to cross-examine.

The court was required to determine the just and equitable division of the parties' property, taking into account their contributions and future needs. Specifically, the court had to assess the weight to be given to the husband's negative contributions to the marriage and the wife's overall contributions, as well as consider the wife's claim for a significant adjustment in her favour and the equalisation of their superannuation entitlements. The wife also sought indemnity costs.

Judge Burchardt reasoned that the wife's contributions, including her role in managing the family and her efforts in relation to the matrimonial home and investment property, warranted a substantial adjustment in her favour. The husband's negative contributions were also taken into account. The court found that an adjustment of 60/40 in the wife's favour for contributions, with a further potential adjustment of up to 15% in her favour based on future needs, was just and equitable. The court also ordered the equalisation of superannuation, with a base amount of $64,269 to be paid to the wife from the husband's superannuation interest.

The court ordered that the net sale proceeds of the matrimonial home and the D Street property be divided 75% to the wife and 25% to the husband, after setting aside $20,000 for Capital Gains Tax on the D Street property. The wife was to retain a specific motor vehicle and other assets in her possession, while the husband was to retain his motor vehicle and other assets in his possession. The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs on a party/party basis, including indemnity costs for the transfer of properties and costs of the wife's application, fixed at $2,617.96 and $20,000 respectively, to be deducted from his share of the sale proceeds. A further $20,000 in costs was also ordered against the husband.