Refinancing evidence necessary to convince court that party should keep house
- The wife wishes very strongly indeed to retain the Suburb D property for the benefit of herself but primarily for the parties’ son E. I have no reason to doubt her evidence that the music room and back yard suitably accommodate the two great interests of the boy, music and cricket.
- Unfortunately the wife gave her evidence with the underlying presumption that she would retain the property. This certainty about outcome may have been the cause of her reluctance to make any concession about contributions during the marriage by the husband. It did not assist her to take this blinkered approach.
- There is no evidence of the ability of the wife to refinance at a level beyond the range of her application, that is, by an increase of debt by $45,000.
- In cross-examination the wife referred in general terms to having “spoken to the bank” without referring to a response by the bank, and that family members were “keen to help her [and E]” remain in the home.
- The wife has just returned to the paid workforce. There are no savings for either party to fall back on.
- The wife was well aware of the husband’s proposal for equal division of the assets. It was incumbent on her to put evidence before the Court of how, if she were unsuccessful with her application, she would refinance both current debt and a substantial payment to the husband of several hundred thousand dollars. That she did not do so, to any extent, suggests that the wife was either well aware of her inability to do so or was closing her eyes to the reality of her financial position.
Read more here