RESPONDENT WANTS HER EX PARTNER’S THINGS OUT OF THE HOUSE ASAP
Lacefield & Algrim [2021] FCCA 681 (7 April 2021)
These reasons for judgment are directed to resolving controversies arising between Mr. Lacefield and Ms. Algrim (de facto partners), in respect of a final de facto property orders, ostensibly consensually made between them, by this court, on 14 August 2019, which factored in contribution issues relating to the win. The respondent-wife seeks to vary the orders such that she is able to sell chattels belonging to the husband still on her property as he has failed to collect them as envisaged by the final orders.
Facts:
Court orders provided for Ms Algrim to retain the parties’ former family home and for Mr Lacefield to retain a number of designated assets, particularly automotive equipment, stored in a shed on the property.
The order of 14 August 2019 directed that Mr Lacefield was to collect these designated chattels, which were delineated in a schedule attached to the orders, within 60 days of the date of the orders. The orders also envisaged Mr Lacefield utilizing an agent to collect them.
Mr Lacefield has not, as yet, arranged for the collection of these items. In these circumstances, on 12 December 2019, Ms Algrim re-commenced proceedings, in this court, seeking the Court’s authority to dispose of the items in question. It being her position that the items’ continuing occupation of her shed is oppressive and she wishes to end her relationship with Mr Lacefield.
She sought the dismissal of the aspect of the orders, which authorized Mr Lacefield to collect the various chattels itemized in the order, from the farm, on the giving of written notice. In lieu thereof, she sought the court’s authorisation to sell the chattels and then account for the proceeds to Mr Lacefield.
Mr Lacefield responded to this application. He sought the amendment of the relevant aspect of the 14 August 2019 order to be extended to 30 July 2020. In support of his application, he deposed that the various items filled a large workshop and, because of their size and weight, would require significant time and effort to move.
Issue: Should the court grant the wife’s application?
Analysis:
The relevant powers of the court in respect of de facto property matters are outlined in Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 particularly Section 90SS(1). This section outlines the general powers of the court, which include the power to make any order which it thinks is necessary to make to do justice.
In all the circumstances of this case, the court is satisfied that considerations of justice and equity dictate that Ms Algrim is entitled to finality in respect of the orders made by consent in August 2019, nearly two years ago. The orders in question have been carefully drafted to overcome any potential problems relating to the family violence order made in Ms Algrim’s favor against Mr Lacefield.
The period in question was a lengthy one, which has subsequently been extended. In order to do justice, in this case, it is appropriate for the court to authorize Ms Algrim to sell the items in question. She is entitled to be able to move on and end her financial relationship with Mr Lacefield.
Conclusion: The Court orders to allow Ms Algrim to sell the chattels and then account for the proceeds to Mr Lacefield.