QLD Property Settlement

[KMac83]

Hi All,
I have just received a 2nd registrar notification in relation to consent orders I have filed at the family court. The notification states;
"Clause 6.1.3 remains somewhat a problem and is difficult to follow. If it is actually necessary to provide for a method of calculation, such method must be set out plainly and precisely. Otherwise, if the sum of $19,000 is an agreed figure (notwithstanding the length of time before the activities envisaged) then that is the only figure to put in the proposed order."

6.1.3 currently reads;
"The Applicant pay The Respondent, post payment of any monies required to secure discharge of any encumbrance registered against the title to the said property, a) 40% of E$110,000 equity balance (E$44,000), minus $15,000 (in lieu of shares transfer (refer Orders 7.1), minus $10,000 (in lieu of superannuation concession (refer Orders 8.1 and 8.2) for the property at the time of settlement; E$19,000."

I am hesitant to put a hard figure down (i.e. remove 'E' as depending on how long this drags out, the bank fees to break the mortgage will change).
I am confused as to how this is difficult to follow... Any advice? Does adding subtotals in make it easier to follow the calculation?

Should I update to reflect;
"The Applicant pay The Respondent, post payment of any monies required to secure discharge of any encumbrance registered against the title to the said property,
a) 40% of E$110,000 equity balance (E$44,000),
b) minus $15,000 (in lieu of shares transfer (refer Orders 7.1) (subtotal E$29,000),
c) minus $10,000 (in lieu of superannuation concession (refer Orders 8.1 and 8.2) (subtotal E$19,000);
For the property at the time of settlement; E$19,000."

This is the only clause that the consent orders appear to be held back by

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

I'm no family lawyer, but the way you've drafted it does cause problems. Notably the 'E'. I understand that you're hesitant to put down a hard figure and that time is a factor. However, there must be certainty in orders - hence either a 'hard figure' or a 'hard calculation'. Precise figures are obviously preferred, as those are less open to later argument. It's a lot harder to argue the meaning of an actual dollar figure than it is the method of calculation of a formula.

If you do insist on a formula, I suggest something along the lines of the following (to use your wording). Again, I'm not a family lawyer so they may suggest differently:

The Applicant pay the Respondent an Amount for the [Property - describe it] calculated as follows:
Amount = ((A - B) x 40%) - C - D
Where:
- A is the value of the Property, however that is established.
- B is the cost of payout and discharge of the nominated secured parties to the Property
- C is the value of the shares in Order 7.1
- D is value of the superannuation concession in Orders 8.1 and 8.2

 

[KMac83]

Thank you Rob Legat! I hope I have paraphrased accurately;
"The Applicant pay the Respondent an Amount for the <suburb> property calculated as follows:
Amount = ((A - B) x 40%) - C – D
Where:
i) A is the value of the Property ($110,000)
ii) B is the cost of payout and discharge of the nominated secured parties to the Property
iii) C is the value of the shares in Order 7.1 = $15,000
iv) D is value of the superannuation concession in Orders 8.1 and 8.2 = $10,000
(i.e. E$19,000 = ((110,000 – B) x 40% - $15,000 – $10,000)"

Is it ok to leave 'B' unknown?

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

Ideally you want to state it if you can, but it is quantifiable by the third party so it may be okay. I'd imagine it should be okay.

 

[Atticus]

Often orders set a specific date on which 'settlement' happens ... Do you have such a date in your orders? .... Is it not possible to then ascertain from the lender/s a final discharge amount for that date & include as the figure B above.