Crittenden v. Crittenden: High-Stakes Asset Battle Ends in Court
Crittenden & Crittenden [2022] FedCFamC1F 892 (18 November 2022)
Ms. Crittenden and Mr. Crittenden are in a dispute over the distribution of assets, fueled by high levels of mistrust between the parties. The court has determined what orders achieve justice and equity for both parties, but it is unlikely that either party will be satisfied with the outcome. The case has been focused on financial transactions made by the husband post-separation, and the couple has incurred significant legal costs.
Facts:
A wife, Ms. Crittenden, and a husband, Mr. Crittenden, are in dispute over the distribution of assets. The case has been fueled by high levels of suspicion and mistrust between the parties. The trial was focused on financial transactions made by the husband post-separation and the parties have incurred significant legal costs. The court has determined what orders achieve justice and equity for both parties, but it is unlikely that either party will be satisfied with the outcome. The parties have disagreed on what should constitute the pool of assets and the wife has sought to retain the former matrimonial home and make a payment to the husband while the husband has sought a different distribution of assets.
The court has expressed concerns about the husband's credibility, but it is ultimately open to the court to make further findings regarding the truthfulness of his statements in the case. The couple in question began cohabiting in 1996 and purchased a home in 1998. They married in 2000 and had two daughters, one of whom was living with the wife at the time of the hearing. The husband owned a family business which he bought for $30,000 and moved to the family home in 2004.
The couple also bought an investment property in Queensland using the equity in the family home. In 2009, the couple purchased a commercial building for the business, which was running profitably with a turnover of over $1,000,000 per year. However, difficulties in the parties' personal relationship emerged and they separated in 2011, with the final separation occurring in 2013. The husband moved to Queensland and the business was placed in liquidation in 2015.
The wife filed for divorce in 2015 and there were a number of interlocutory applications. A sale of the commercial building was made in 2016 for a profit and the funds were divided between the parties. The husband moved to another region in Queensland and started working as a sole trader. Final parenting orders were made in 2020 and the property applications were heard in 2021.
Issue:
The issue in this case is a dispute over the distribution of assets between a wife, Ms. Crittenden, and a husband, Mr. Crittenden. The case has been fueled by high levels of suspicion and mistrust between the parties, and the trial was focused on financial transactions made by the husband post-separation. The court is determining what orders will achieve justice and equity for both parties.
Applicable law:
Hickey & Hickey [2003] FamCA 395; (2003) FLC 93-143 - provides that the court's process to divide assets and liabilities in a divorce case includes identifying the pool of assets and liabilities, assessing the relative contributions of both parties, considering relevant factors, and determining whether the proposed order is just and equitable for both parties.
Mayhew & Fairweather [2022] FedCFamC1A 53; (2022) 64 Fam LR 633 - provides that it is not consistent with authority to “punish” in some monetary way a party under s 75(2), and even treating the husband’s evidence with more robustness does not, in this case, lead to a finding that there are undisclosed assets of any significance
Analysis:
The husband made a declaration to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) stating that his revenue would not exceed $800,000 and that he had at least $46,000 in Net Tangible Assets. The wife argues that the husband had more assets in the form of plant and equipment, but the husband only admits to having tools worth $5,000. The wife also claims that the husband had valuable memorabilia, but the judge is unable to attribute a reliable value to the items and accepts the husband's assertion of a value of $500. The husband also mentions that the majority of items were broken, lost, stolen or denied possession.
The wife wants to keep the house she has lived in since separating, which would be fair as long as she can borrow enough money to pay the husband's share. At the time of their separation, her bank pre-approval certificate suggested she was eligible for a loan of $265,000, which would allow her to pay the husband around $140,000. However, it is unclear if these funds are still available and if the conditions of the loan have been met. Additionally, if the husband were to receive 35% of the total net value of the assets, that would come out to $511,740.
Conclusion:
The proceedings will be halted temporarily for additional submissions at 9:30 AM on December 2, 2022 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) in Brisbane, via telephone. The wife's legal representatives must email the husband's legal representatives and send a copy of the order form to a specific email address no later than 4:00 PM on November 30, 2022, in accordance with the Reasons for Judgment issued on November 18, 2022.
Case: Crittenden & Crittenden [2022] FedCFamC1F 892
Judgment of: BAUMANN J
Counsels
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Dura
Solicitor for the Applicant: W.G McNally Jones Staff Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Rosic