Articles

In Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898 the Full Court considered property orders where towards the end of a marriage, a block of land suddenly and significantly increased in value, in circumstances where that block of land was part of the husband’s initial contributions.

The parties in this case were married and had a relationship of around 27 years. Prior to meeting the Wife, the Husband acquired a part interest in three blocks of land.  5 years into the relationship the Husband agreed with the co-owner of two of the blocks that they would divide them between themselves. 13 years into the relationship, the Husband sold his block for $215,000.  Using $105,000 of those proceeds the Husband then purchased the remaining half of the third block.  9 years after he became the sole owner of the third block of land, that land was rezoned which meant it could then be used for residential purposes.  This led to a significant increase in the lands value to $10 million dollars.  

The primary Judge found that the Husband bringing the block of land into the marriage was a significant contribution, taking into account its value at the time of the hearing and apportioned the Husband 66% of the asset pool.

The Full Court disagreed with this approach and found the primary Judge should have treated the third block of land as one of the myriad of contributions made throughout the marriage, rather than weighing up the myriad of contributions by the parties against the Husband’s contribution of this block of land.  

The Full Court found not only did the primary judges approach “have the effect of minimising the contributions of each of the parties over a long marriage in which both parties had worked very hard and raised a family” [83] , but the property should have been regarded for its springboard value and not as to its value at the time of the hearing. 

The Full Court said the primary Judge should have considered the direct and indirect contributions the Wife made to family and finances.  That the parties’ decision not to use all the proceeds from sale of the first block for family purposes had been overlooked as it enabled the Husband to gain sole ownership of the third block of land.

Further, a significant contribution that should have been taken into account, was the fact the parties jointly decided to retain the third block of land for five years so it would increase in value from $2.5 million to $10 million and during that time the parties lived a modest lifestyle whilst waiting for the eventual sale. 

The Full Court made it clear, that the primary judge, by quarantining the third block of land from the contributions made by the parties, was isolating and weighing those contributions against the contribution of the third block of land.  

This was the wrong approach for a number of reasons, and the reviewing of the evidence showed that each of the parties contributions throughout their marriage to the third block of land “were of precisely the same nature and extent that each made in their respective agreed roles and spheres” [86] and should be treated as equal.  The Full Court said the rezoning that caused the value of the land to skyrocket and the increase in value “does not favour one party over the other”. [137]

The appeal was allowed and the Husband’s contributions were re-assessed at 53%.