Legal Surprise
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Wizard Land Downunder
Posts: 2,615
Legal Surprise
Had to post this exerpt from the newspaper online, as it proves that the LAW does not have to be an ass, especially where justice amid alcoholic relationships coincide.
Oh if only this magistrates sense of fair play, honour and sheer gus were not this rare and actually were the usual way of dealing with financial settlements.
"FRITTERING away cash on booze and dope in a 20-plus year marriage has cost a man dearly in a property settlement.
A federal magistrate has decided his excessive drug and alcohol use means his former wife should get an extra $150,000, or 20 per cent, of their assets.
The Federal Magistrates' Court heard the man drank between six and 12 stubbies of beer a night and smoked marijuana almost daily.
"It is not possible to say exactly how much this impacted upon the financial outcome with any certainty," magistrate Philip Burchardt said in a recently published judgment.
"But its effect must have been significant.
"The purchase of a dozen stubbies of beer per night would cost a lot of money, as would the regular consumption of marijuana which, being an illegal drug, might reasonably be thought to be expensive."
Mr Burchardt rejected the husband's claim the alcohol was given to him at work.
Taking into account the effect of the excessive alcohol and drug use on family finances, and the burden it put on the wife's marital role, he said it was appropriate to allocate her an extra 20 per cent of the property pool.
The wife told the court her husband's moods were volatile and he subjected her and their children to considerable abuse when drunk or drug-affected.
Mr Burchardt said in a long marriage, where the husband was the main breadwinner and the wife had brought up the children and worked part-time, it might be presumed the parties' contributions should be accepted as equal.
"In this case, there is no possible question the conduct of the husband, effectively throughout the entirety of the marriage, made the wife's contributions far more onerous than they ought to have been," he said.
The property pool was almost $750,000.
Mr Burchardt said allocating 30 per cent to the husband would give him almost $225,000.
The court heard he was now a teetotaller."
Oh if only this magistrates sense of fair play, honour and sheer gus were not this rare and actually were the usual way of dealing with financial settlements.
"FRITTERING away cash on booze and dope in a 20-plus year marriage has cost a man dearly in a property settlement.
A federal magistrate has decided his excessive drug and alcohol use means his former wife should get an extra $150,000, or 20 per cent, of their assets.
The Federal Magistrates' Court heard the man drank between six and 12 stubbies of beer a night and smoked marijuana almost daily.
"It is not possible to say exactly how much this impacted upon the financial outcome with any certainty," magistrate Philip Burchardt said in a recently published judgment.
"But its effect must have been significant.
"The purchase of a dozen stubbies of beer per night would cost a lot of money, as would the regular consumption of marijuana which, being an illegal drug, might reasonably be thought to be expensive."
Mr Burchardt rejected the husband's claim the alcohol was given to him at work.
Taking into account the effect of the excessive alcohol and drug use on family finances, and the burden it put on the wife's marital role, he said it was appropriate to allocate her an extra 20 per cent of the property pool.
The wife told the court her husband's moods were volatile and he subjected her and their children to considerable abuse when drunk or drug-affected.
Mr Burchardt said in a long marriage, where the husband was the main breadwinner and the wife had brought up the children and worked part-time, it might be presumed the parties' contributions should be accepted as equal.
"In this case, there is no possible question the conduct of the husband, effectively throughout the entirety of the marriage, made the wife's contributions far more onerous than they ought to have been," he said.
The property pool was almost $750,000.
Mr Burchardt said allocating 30 per cent to the husband would give him almost $225,000.
The court heard he was now a teetotaller."
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Wizard Land Downunder
Posts: 2,615
My Goodness didn't my old eyes pop. Sent an email to RABF (who lives next door) and heard his opening yelp and remarks when he read it, and sent a copy to a couple of pals who have AH's sending them wacko.
How lovely if this brain dust floated over lawgivers everywhere.
How lovely if this brain dust floated over lawgivers everywhere.
Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 280
Originally Posted by lillamy 
Holy. Snapping. Ducksh*t.
Gotta love that. And wouldn't it be nice to have that as a precedent for future cases?
Gotta love that. And wouldn't it be nice to have that as a precedent for future cases?
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Wizard Land Downunder
Posts: 2,615
I wonder if his wife actually saw to the mortgage and other bills being paid, or maybe it was a rare case.
Whichever it is, the fact that a Magistrate in the Australian Federal Magistrates Court said what he did and handied down such a ruling,after so long it being ignored..really gave me a flip. I will keep an eye open to see what follows from this.
What a shock it could be for those A's who g don the path to hell secure in the thought that The are ok financially and "She" can't get what she deserves in settlement. Imagine if all was taken into account, her battling against his addiction and behavior, trying to keep a home going and raise kids. It would sure add clout to her words of "I will not stay married to a drinker", if he stood to have to pay out a big sum for what she suffered due to his drinking.
Please God it will not just sink into oblivion.
Whichever it is, the fact that a Magistrate in the Australian Federal Magistrates Court said what he did and handied down such a ruling,after so long it being ignored..really gave me a flip. I will keep an eye open to see what follows from this.
What a shock it could be for those A's who g don the path to hell secure in the thought that The are ok financially and "She" can't get what she deserves in settlement. Imagine if all was taken into account, her battling against his addiction and behavior, trying to keep a home going and raise kids. It would sure add clout to her words of "I will not stay married to a drinker", if he stood to have to pay out a big sum for what she suffered due to his drinking.
Please God it will not just sink into oblivion.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
