Navigating Complex Family Law Property Settlement Cases | Melbourne Property Lawyers

Melbourne Property Lawyers for Complex Family Violence Cases

Navigating property settlements in family law cases can be challenging, particularly when dealing with complex scenarios involving high-value assets and allegations of misconduct. A recent case that has drawn significant attention is the Gadhavi case. This case provides valuable insights into how courts approach property settlements when there are significant financial and behavioural complexities involved.

At Rowan Skinner & Associates Lawyers, we are accredited Melbourne property lawyers and family law property settlement lawyers. We offer expert advice to ensure fair outcomes in such intricate matters.

Facts From the Gadhavi Case

In the Gadhavi case, the wife received property with a value of 55% of the net property available while the husband received 45%.

The parties were married for 20 years before separating in 2018. This was a very unusual case. The husband (H), an investment banker, earned substantial income, while the wife (W) was a doctor who mostly worked full time. However, the husband stopped working for three years to care for their younger child needing 24-hour care.

Their marriage produced two, now adult, children.

At the commencement of the parties’ relationship, the husband had assets worth $2,716,236, while the wife had assets valued at $375,000.

• In 1999, H sells his home for $1.275 million and jointly, they purchased a family home (FMH) jointly for $2.05 million, which appreciated to $14.5 million at trial.
• Both H and W enjoyed high incomes either through their work or investment.

The property ultimately amounted to $24 million.

However, the case took a turn when allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour by the husband emerged, impacting the court’s decision-making process.

How Does Family Court Make Findings on Family Violence?

The primary judge found that “during the course of the parties’ intact relationship and subsequent to their separation, the husband engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct towards the wife and the parties’ children which included several incidents involving actual physical violence”

The H counsel conceded the violence. The judge then concluded that the wife’s contributions during the marriage warranted a 60% share of the property, with the remaining 40% allocated to the husband. Additionally, a 5% adjustment was made in favour of the husband for 75(2).

TJ found that the wife’s parenting which was made significantly more arduous “due to the husband’s dysfunctional, unacceptable, demeaning, and poor treatment of her and [the eldest child]” (at [220]);

The complaint of H was the 60/40 was unreasonable and not clear how the TJ arrived at 60/40.

[31] Pierce at [28]:

• …It is necessary to weigh the initial contributions by a party with all other relevant contributions of both the husband and the wife. In considering the weight to be attached to the initial contribution, in this case of the husband, regard must be had to the use made by the parties of that contribution.

[32] Cabbell at [54]: in considering the parties’ contributions, it is necessary to trace the use of those assets and consider the foundation that they laid for the subsequent accumulation of wealth by the parties.

• On appeal unchallenged findings by PJ that H engaged in coercive and controlling conduct towards W and the children which included several incidents of actual physical violence
• On appeal the Husband concedes that consistent with Kennon PJ was entitled to give additional weight to W’s contributions during relationship and afterwards because of H’s conduct
• PJ gives W 60% on contribution, and H 5 percent for future needs, therefore 55:45 split in favour of W

[33] in evaluating contributions, it was necessary for the Judge to have regard to:

• context of initial contribution; and
• opportunity that initial contribution created; and
• impact of that initial contribution on subsequent wealth at hearing

But when that process is undertaken, how does one get 60% to W?

• H argues 60% is beyond reasonable and, in any event, the reasons given do not explain how PJ arrived at 60% on the evidence about contribution.
• W argues PJ entitled to adopt a holistic approach and avoid compartmentalization of various contributions and weighing one against the other: Benson & Drury; Steinbrenner.

Full Court Findings on Family Violence Claims

[41]-[45] Full Court acknowledges:

• s79 discretion not a mathematical exercise, is values-based and impressionistic, and involves an inevitable leap from a valuation to declaring a percentage; and
• totality of contributions to be assessed holistically, and not using an accounting or scoring approach to each separate contribution; and
• in Kennon cases, contributions made more arduous must be weighed with other contributions, and it is an error to compartmentalize the various contributions and weigh one against the remainder: Jabour; and
• PJ cannot simply carry forward an original contribution as a mathematical proportion of total contribution.

Full Court set aside the judgment and remitted to another judge.

 

The Role of Family Law Property Settlement Lawyers

The Gadhavi case underscores the complexities involved in family law property settlements, particularly when significant assets and behavioural issues are at play. For those facing similar challenges, seeking the expertise of Melbourne property lawyers or family law property settlement lawyers is crucial.

At Rowan Skinner & Associate Lawyers, we specialise in navigating complex family law matters and ensuring that our clients receive fair and equitable outcomes based on a thorough understanding of the law and individual circumstances. We also service clients in Melbourne Northern Suburbs, such as Northcote, Alphington, Carlton, Fitzroy, North Fitzroy, Kew and Heidelberg, as well as South Melbourne and South Yarra. Contact us today for a non-obligatory consultation.

 

Gadhavi v Gadhavi (2023) FedCFamC1A 117 (21 July 2023)