·   ·  664 posts
  •  ·  3924 friends

Dispute over Property and Financial Interests Leads to Court Battle between Husband and Wife

Filby & Northcott (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 912 (21 November 2022)

Dispute in the case centers around property and finances between husband and wife, including trusts and corporations.  Both parties argue over the value of assets and ownership transfer, wife wants more than just cash and to keep some property/entities, husband wants to maximize cash for wife.  Court must determine values, resolve disputes, and ensure justice and fairness.

On July 27, 2022, the Court published its decision in the case of Filby & Northcott [2022] FedCFamC1F 529 and outlined the parameters for what would achieve justice and equity for both parties.  The Court instructed the parties to attempt to negotiate a final agreement on the form of order, and if they were unable to come to an agreement, to file their orders by August 17, 2022.

Since the publication of the Court's decision, the husband's solicitors sent a letter on August 4, 2022, including a draft of the final orders and an explanation for them.  The wife filed her minute of order on August 17 and sent an email on August 29 to remind everyone of the orders sought.  On August 30, there were oral submissions received from both counsels and the husband filed a written response on September 7, which addressed a written submission from the wife filed on September 2.

The wife felt the need to make a further submission on September 9 to correct and respond to the husband's submissions, but also stated that she did not want to engage in any further dialogue.  The husband filed a final submission on September 14, stating that there was no provision for continual submissions but that a response was required.

Issue:
The issue in this case is that both parties have differing opinions on the value of assets and the transfer of property ownership.  The wife wants to keep some assets, while the husband wants to maximize cash for the wife.  The court must make findings based on evidence and determine the best resolution for justice and fairness.

Applicable law:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - provides that the court shall, as far as practicable, make such orders as will finally determine the financial relationships between the parties to the marriage and avoid further proceedings between them.

Swaney & Ward [1987] FamCA 24(1988) FLC 91-928 - provides that a trial judge may amend reasons at any time prior to the issue of final orders.

Analysis:

The court accepts the husband's submission that his form of order (template) is neat, simple, and maximizes the available cash for the wife.  The court disagrees that a mathematical error occurs at paragraph 132 of the Reasons. The court will amend the nett value of a property to $442,000.  The court does not require a trustee for sale at this time but acknowledges the husband may face difficulties separating interests if he cannot work through complexities involving trusts and corporations.  The wife seeks more than just cash and the court believes a neat order will help achieve justice and equity. 

The court orders the AE Street property to vest in the wife.  The court accepts the husband's form of order regarding two deregistered entities.  The court regards altering interests as more appropriate and provides the wife with indemnities.  The wife's proposed order for cattle was not pressed.  The husband must provide the wife with copies of all tax returns and assessments.

Conclusion:

This order discharges all previous property orders except for the costs of either party.  The husband is authorized to complete and file tax returns for entities mentioned in another order.  The order sets compliance deadlines and details the responsibilities of both the husband and wife.  The settlement date is 90 days from the order's date and the husband must pay $762,150 to the wife's trust account.  The wife is entitled to 100% of a super fund payment and the husband must resign as a member and trustee of the fund after the superannuation split.

This order binds the trustees of the fund.  This is a court order outlining the terms of a property settlement between a husband and wife.  Within 90 days, the husband must transfer the property at AJ Street, AG Town, Queensland to the wife without mortgage encumbrance.  The wife will retain the properties at AA Street, Town BB, furniture and contents, bank account balances, superannuation entitlements, and interests in CF Company, BU Company, BV Pty Ltd, and BW Pty Ltd. 

The wife will also receive interim property payments of $150,000.00 and $12,000.00. Within 30 days, the husband must transfer the Motor Vehicle 2 to the wife.  The wife will be responsible for debts in her name, but the husband will be responsible for the debt owed to XX Bank.  The wife must resign from any positions she holds in the Filby entities and the husband must indemnify her in respect of any taxation liabilities of V Pty Ltd.  If the National Australia Bank pursues either party in regards to liabilities, they will be jointly responsible. If either party fails to sign necessary documents, the Registrar of the Court may do so on their behalf.  Both parties may share a copy of the court order with their financer, accountant, and government departments.  The order is binding on both parties' heirs, executors, and assigns, and the husband must pay the wife $49,150 within 30 days. Both parties have the liberty to apply to the court.

Case: Filby & Northcott (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 912

Judgment of: BAUMANN J

Counsels: 

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Fellows

Solicitor for the Applicant: J Hamilton & Associates

Solicitor for the Respondent: Campbell & Co

Comments (0)
Login or Join to comment.

FLAST

Close