Vacant possession and control of sale given to Wife
- As opined by Watts J in Moroni & Moroni  FamCA 664:
The notion of a “level playing field” is one which almost axiomatically is in the interests of justice and an important matter to consider when deciding whether it would be appropriate to make an interim property order.
- The husband has occupied the prime matrimonial asset to the exclusion of the wife now for almost three years. The wife has had to rent a home for herself and the parties’ child at significant cost to her from her available capital referred to above. She has reasonably accounted for her expenditure of other funds available to her.
- The husband has no plan to resolve the impasse as to the Suburb C property, indeed he asserts a multitude of issues that may impact on the sale of the property and leave him as the only viable owner.
- In reality the market will set the sale price and hence the value of the property.
- In the circumstances as discussed above, it is appropriate and in the interests of justice that the Suburb C property be sold and that the wife have the carriage of that sale particularly due to the husband’s lack of action in rectifying issues with the property in the past. The husband will be required to give vacant possession promptly with the wife having sole use and occupation pending sale.
- By reason of a consideration of contributions and other factors above, it is appropriate that both parties receive $200,000.00 from the proceeds of sale and from the sum payable to the husband the wife be paid her outstanding costs and interest with the balance invested in a controlled monies account pending further order.
Read more here
Queensland/New South Wales/Victoria