At The Time Of Their Separation Jake And Lana Had Been

At the time of their separation Jake and Lana had been married for 18 years, this is considered to be a long marriage and is relevant to any property orders that might be made. This is especially important in regards to the future needs of the parties, and any property that might have been bought into a marriage, as this initial contribution is seen to become less important over time (Brown V Brown (2005)). The processes and laws regulating property orders for divorcing couples are found in Part VIII of the FLA. In Australia the main requirement of property division is coming to an outcome that is just and equitable for both parties on a case-to-case basis (Mallet V Mallet (1984)). When deciding upon this, three considerations are†¦show more content†¦The future incomes of the parties is not regarded as ‘property,’ with the only exception being found in Pope V Pope (2012), where a source of income is derived from a piece of property. Future income is however relevant to future needs of the parties. Superannuation has been treated as property since 2002, pursuant to s. 90MC of the FLA. The value of the property is to be determined at the time of the trail. In this case the property includes: †¢ Elwood Home, valued at $1.3 million †¢ South Melbourne Apartment, Valued at $900,000 and rented out at $3000 a month, the rent of $3000 while an income is considered to be property because it derives from property (Pope V Pope). †¢ Melbourne cafà ©, current value not stated. †¢ Brisbane cafà ©, valued at $140,000 †¢ Sydney cafà ©, valued at $140,000 †¢ Lana’s superannuation, $230,000 †¢ Jake’s superannuation, $140,000 Total property pool: $9,852,000- this number does not take into account the value of the Melbourne cat cafà © as such numbers have not been