Mateo v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2002] FCA 344

Mateo v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2002] FCA 344

The consideration given by the applicant, including both financial payments and her non-financial contributions during the marriage, was not less than the market value of the property transferred under the Family Court orders; no evidence established the main purpose of the transfer was to defeat creditors. The transaction was not void under either s 120 or s 121 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Parties
Applicant: Corazon Bes Mateo; Respondent/cross Applicant: Official Trustee in Bankruptcy; Second Cross Respondent: Jeremy Mateo; Third Cross Respondent: Jennifer Joy Mateo; Fourth Cross Respondent: Justeen James Mateo
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Application and Cross Claim in Bankruptcy Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application to set aside the Notice allowed; cross-claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Transfer to Defeat Creditors, Undervalued Transactions, Effect of Family Court Property Orders
Bankruptcy Family Law Transfer to Defeat Creditors Undervalued Transactions Effect of Family Court Property Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corazon Bes Mateo

Applicant

Official Trustee in Bankruptcy

Respondent/cross Applicant

Jeremy Mateo

Second Cross Respondent

Jennifer Joy Mateo

Third Cross Respondent

Justeen James Mateo

Fourth Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application and Cross Claim in Bankruptcy Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of property pursuant to Family Court Consent Orders was void against the Trustee under ss 120 and 121 Bankruptcy Act 1966
  2. 2 Whether the consideration for the transfer was less than market value
  3. 3 Whether the main purpose of the transfer was to defeat creditors

Ratio Decidendi

The consideration given by the applicant, including both financial payments and her non-financial contributions during the marriage, was not less than the market value of the property transferred under the Family Court orders; no evidence established the main purpose of the transfer was to defeat creditors. The transaction was not void under either s 120 or s 121 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the Notice allowed; cross-claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to set aside the Notice is allowed.
  • The respondent is to pay the costs of the applicant.