“Woefully inadequate” evidence – Yavuz & Yavuz

August 15, 2017

Yavuz & Yavuz [2017] FamCAFC 74 (April 2016)

A woman, her husband and his brother went to court…

This family law matter involved Mrs Yavuz (the wife), Mr Yavuz (the husband) and Dr Yavuz (the husband’s brother). The husband and his brother were partners in a number of businesses and investment properties, equally sharing in the partnership profits.

The Court orders (in 2010) that business and property valuations are undertaken. The trial takes place in 2013. No valuations have been undertaken.

The trial judge cobbles together an order for a property settlement to the wife. Essentially, he must pay her $1.5 million out of the proceeds of the sale of various items of property.

The games begin with a barrage of appeals from the brother and the husband, including the assertion that the trial judge failed to allow for transaction costs and taxes that will be incurred in a sale of properties. The good doctor also throws in that he is owed money from the partnership for finance he has provided between 2010 and 2013, despite not being evident in the financial statements.

“No evidence, or even calculations of, prospective realisation costs or prospective taxation imposts was provided. The bare assertion that some realisation costs / capital gains tax might be incurred was woefully inadequate”.

Needless to say that the appeals were largely dismissed and the husband and brother were questionable witnesses.

The court was left to determine the value of various properties for the settlement based on inadequate and unsatisfactory information.