{"id":686,"date":"2022-01-21T04:46:11","date_gmt":"2022-01-21T04:46:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-communitya\/?p=686"},"modified":"2022-01-21T05:10:35","modified_gmt":"2022-01-21T05:10:35","slug":"family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/","title":{"rendered":"Family Court Gives Common Sense Meaning to Ambiguous Term in Binding Financial Agreement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Keywords: Binding Financial Agreement \u2013 Ambiguous recital (purporting to define when the parties would be deemed to have separated) construed as referring to their actual separation date; determination by way of construction; section 90DA Family Law Act<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case of Cuo & Ming and Ors<\/em> [2016] FamCA 495 (12 May 2016) concerned a complex property matter between Ms Cuo, \u201cthe wife\u201d and Mr Ming, \u201cthe husband\u201d.  The husband and wife sought equitable relief in terms of determining ownership of quite substantial property holdings.  The husband\u2019s parents \u201cthe interveners\u201d, intervened in the proceedings, and were seeking equitable remedies.  Benjamin J made a preliminary determination as to the meaning of a recital in a Binding Financial Agreement that set out the circumstances in which the parties would be considered to have separated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The couple started living together in 2005.  Whist still in a de facto relationship, they made a Binding Financial Agreement (\u201cthe Agreement\u201d) in 2009 pursuant to s90UC and s90B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)(the \u201cAct\u201d).  The Agreement was intended to deal with property matters should the couple separate either prior to or after marriage.  Recital \u201cG\u201d set out the circumstances that would determine the couple had separated. They married in February 2011 and separated on 7 June 2013.   Under the Agreement, the husband would pay the wife half the net value of the assets of a particular trust within thirty days of the separation.  The date that the couple had separated would affect the settlement amount the wife would receive from the husband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What was the date of \u2018separation\u2019?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The recital stipulated that \u201cthe parties shall separate if either or both of them sign a statement to the effect that they have separated; are living separately and apart\u2026\u201d   It was, according to Benjamin J, \u201cnot clear and \u2026 capable of more than one construction.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both parties agreed that they had separated on 7 June 2013; which is when they started living apart.  This date was not in dispute and was corroborated in both their affidavits.  The husband applied for a divorce and the order was granted on 3 February 2015, taking effect on 4 March 2015.  Whilst the husband did not provide a separation declaration, the wife effected one on 23 March 2015, which was served on the husband\u2019s solicitors three days later.  At court, the husband and wife both provided different dates of separation \u2013 the wife sought to have the date the declaration was served as the date of the separation, pursuant to the Recital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Construction Principles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In considering how to construct the Recital, His Honour looked at the High Court decision in Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd<\/em> [2015] HCA 37, which sets out the governing principles for interpreting contract terms. It is an objective test, and the rights and liabilities of the parties to a contract \u201care determined objectively, by reference to its text, context \u2026 and purpose.\u201d   Another important consideration in determining how to construe a contract was that the parties \u201cintended to produce a commercial result\u201d, it, therefore, should be construed \u201cso as to avoid it \u2018making commercial nonsense\u2019\u201d.  A similar approach had been adopted earlier by the Full Court in Sanger & Sanger <\/em>[2012] FamCAFC 210.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/strong><\/em>Section 90DA<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/strong>His Honour considered: \u201cthe issue of construction is whether Recital G is facilitative as asserted by the husband and the interveners or whether it constructs another date, perhaps more akin to the application of s 90DA in terms of a declaration.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The wife\u2019s senior counsel adopted a narrow construction of the Recital.  He argued that the application of the provisions of s 90DA of the Act, specifically s 90DA(4) applied to the Recital.   He claimed that the most logical construction of the document would require recognising that the Agreement should begin to operate from the same time as the Act gave it \u201cforce and effect\u201d.  Thus, the provision in the Agreement was activated when either party issued a separation declaration, in this case, the wife.  He further argued that this approach would avert any controversy as to the operation of s 90DA(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 90B<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

His Honour instead found favour with the construction of the Recital that was put forward by the counsel for the interveners.  The senior counsel argued that the wife\u2019s interpretation of the Recital \u201cflies in the face of common sense\u201d, for, among other things, it would allow the actual separation to be \u201cdisconnected and temporally remote from the breakdown of the marriage\u201d as required in s90B(2) of the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, His Honour acknowledged that such a construction would also entail that the distribution of property, that follows the breakdown of a marriage, pursuant to s 90B(2) would only occur if one of the parties were to sign a document that fulfilled the requirements as set out in Recital G.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He went on to say that were such a literal interpretation of the Recital to be applied, then it would follow that separation could arguably occur through the issuing of a declaration, to satisfy the requirements of the Recital, but presumably without necessarily informing the other party.  His Honour felt that objectively, that could not have been the intention of the parties.  He accepted the arguments put forward by counsel for the husband and the interveners.  The document had been prepared as a Binding Financial Agreement to comply with s 90B(2) of the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimate Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Agreement had been drafted to particularise the financial rights and liabilities of the husband and wife, in contract form, with conditions that applied if the parties separated.  Therefore it was intended to come into force after the actual separation.  In order to determine the meaning of the Agreement, His Honour also needed to consider objectively \u201cwhat a reasonable party to such an agreement would have understood the recital to mean\u201d.  It was to function in the context of the breakdown of the parties\u2019 relationship.  Although some of the terms in the recital were ambiguous, His Honour felt that the \u201ccontext and nature of the agreement was a relevant consideration\u201d.  He, therefore, found that the parties had separated on 7 June 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Full Court of Family Court Considers Treatment of Allegations of Family Violence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords: Children \u2013 Treatment of untested allegations of family violence at the interim hearing \u2013 Allegations should not be ignored because they are contested \u2013 Mother successfully appeals interim order discharging earlier order for supervision of father\u2019s time \u2013 Trial judge also did not consider father\u2019s consent to prior order
Allegations of family violence are increasingly common in parenting proceedings.  And, these allegations of family violence are often in dispute, making it challenging for courts to make decisions on the matter without the benefit of a trial.  In interim proceedings, courts tend to proceed with caution where any safety concerns for the children have been raised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the recent case of Salah & Salah<\/em> [2016] FamCAFC 100 (17 June 2016) the Full Court of the Family Court (May, Ainslie-Wallace and Cronin JJ) heard the mother\u2019s appeal against a Federal Circuit Court decision in a matter involving allegations of family violence.  There were three children concerned, aged five, four and three, the youngest of whom suffered from epilepsy, seizures and a developmental delay. The mother had been the primary carer of the children since separating from the father.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shortly after the mother had filed her application for parenting orders, which contained allegations of family violence by the father, an order was made by consent that \u201ceither one of the children\u2019s paternal grandparents and\/or the paternal aunt \u2026 [would] be present during the father\u2019s time with the children \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subsequently, at a contested interim hearing a few weeks later in the Federal Circuit Court, Dunkley J discharged the consent orders and instead made an order that the father\u2019s time with the children is unsupervised.  The mother appealed the decision, on the grounds that Dunkley J had not addressed the family violence issues correctly, and should also have had regard to the consent orders agreed to by both parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Appeal<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Full Court held that pursuant to section 60CG of the Family Law Act 1975<\/em> (Cth) (\u201cthe Act\u201d) when the Court is preparing to draft parenting orders, it is obliged to consider that any orders made will not place a person at risk of family violence.  The Full Court of the Family Court was of the view that had Dunkley J referred to section 61DA(3) that pertains to the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility as applying at interim hearings unless the court considers that the presumption is not appropriate in the circumstances, His Honour would have taken a more cautious approach in making interim orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notwithstanding the fact that the allegations of family violence were both disputed and untested, His Honour would have, as a precautionary measure, applied section 60CG.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In interim proceedings, courts are often presented with conflicting facts, the veracity of which cannot be ascertained prior to a trial.  The Full Court acknowledged that Dunkley J did consider this and he also referred to the legislative pathway as set out in Goode & Goode<\/em> (2006) FLC 93-286.  Nevertheless, they stated that findings in interim proceedings \u201cshould be couched with great circumspection\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They referred to an earlier decision in SS & AH<\/em> [2010] FamCAFC 13, where the majority of the Full Court had said:  \u201c\u2026 It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue\u201d.  Dunkley J had been faced with a similar dilemma in the present case.  When presented with quite serious allegations of family violence, his Honour was obliged to do more than \u2018merely note the contention\u2019 and should not \u2018simply ignore an assertion because its accuracy had been put in issue\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem in this case, is that although Dunkley J rightly noted that he could not, at that stage of the proceedings, make findings on the disputed allegations, he then went on to say that under those circumstances, the presumption for equal shared parental responsibility nevertheless still applied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dunkley J in making this inference had found that there was \u2018no other evidence available to him, implying that there needed to be corroboration of the mother\u2019s allegations, and therefore the presumption was not rebutted.  The Full Court felt this was an error, as family violence often occurs in the home, in private, and without witnesses.  Furthermore, Dinkley J had also erred when he had stated that findings could not be made \u2018as to whether either party perpetrated family violence at an interim stage given conflicted evidence\u2019 and therefore he concluded that \u201cthe civil standard of proof is met by neither\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Full Court regarded this conclusion as incorrect, and inappropriate in circumstances where disputed allegations of serious family violence are put forward at interim hearings.  His Honour erred, by neglecting to take note of allegations that he had previously considered \u2018significant\u2019, and by refusing to consider them at interim proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His Honour should have considered section 61DA(3) which sets out how the Court should approach the presumption of equal parental responsibility in interim orders, and that the presumption applies unless the Court believes it would be inappropriate.  The Full Court also felt that by discharging the consent orders, Dinkley J had effectively found that the allegations of family violence had not been proven at that stage and that the risk of family violence did not need to be taken into account at the interim hearing.  The Full Court said that His Honour had \u2018ignored the allegations of family violence.  To do so was to perpetuate the error which has already been established\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the orders were set aside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New Family Court Case on Relationship between Family Law Parenting and Intervention Orders<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Children \u2013 Relationship between family violence order and parenting order\u2013 Family Court of WA determines whether text messages sent by father to mother contravened violence restraining order or were sent in \u201can emergency\u201d pursuant to its contact order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Monaco & Daniels<\/em> [2016] FCWA 35 (27 May 2016) Walters J considered whether the father Mr Monaco had contravened a violence restraining order (\u201cVRO\u201d) by sending text messages to the mother Ms Daniels. Family violence orders are generally made under a prescribed law of a state or territory to protect a person or persons from family violence. When parenting orders are drafted, the court is made aware of any family violence orders, parenting orders can be made taking those into account, for example by having handovers in a public place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ms Daniels and Mr Monaco began a relationship in 2003 and married the following year. They were the parents of Child A born in 2006. They finally separated in April 2011. Their relationship was described by the court as \u201cvolatile\u201d. In November 2011, a VRO was made in a Magistrates Court, pursuant to the provisions of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA). The \u201cperson protected\u201d was Ms Daniels, and the \u201cperson bound by this order\u201d was Mr Monaco. The VRO did not permit any contact between the parties \u201csave and except\u201d as provided for in a parenting order. The parenting order, made in 2013, stipulated that the parties would \u201conly communicate with each other in relation to issues concerning [Child A\u2019s] welfare by writing either in a communication book to be provided by [Ms Daniels] or by email and, in the event of an emergency, by SMS text message\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Communications between the Parties<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the morning of 18 May 2013, Mr Monaco alleged that he was at the police station at 9.45 am where the handover was due to occur at 10 am. He received a call from the mother\u2019s phone at 10.23 am. He did not answer it but listened to the message left by child A asking what time they were meant to arrive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reply, the father sent the following SMS: \u201c10 am!!\u201d He received a second call which he let ring through to his voicemail. The message was from Child A saying that she was on her way. Shortly thereafter, the mother sent an SMS: \u201cdo not text me \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The father left the station and sent a further SMS: \u201cYou will need to drop her off to me at Woolworths \u2026\u201d The mother responded: \u201cNo \u2013 I don\u2019t feel safe doing that\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mother texted the father at 10.51 am saying: \u201cChild A is waiting\u201d. The father replied: \u201cWhere??\u201d and received a text from the mother saying they were at the police station. Ms Daniels argued that these messages breached the VRO whilst it was Mr Monaco\u2019s contention that the messages were sent in an emergency, permissible under the parenting orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Family Violence Orders and Family Law Orders<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the VRO prohibited Mr Monaco from communicating or attempting to communicate \u201cby whatever means\u201d with Ms Daniels, it had been made subject to the parenting orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In those circumstances, His Honour felt there should not have been any inconsistencies in the duties\/obligations between the two documents. And although section 68P(2)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)(\u201cthe Act\u201d), required that inconsistency between these orders be specified,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His Honour felt that in this case, it was not strictly necessary as these obligations had been set out in the VRO. Correspondingly, explanations are set out in sections 68P(2)(b) and (c) did not apply. And pursuant to section 68P(4) any failure to abide by the VRO did not invalidate the parenting orders. Additionally, section 68Q(1) of the Act provided for the invalidity of the VRO insofar as it was inconsistent with the parenting orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Definition of \u201cEmergency\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court then considered whether Mr Monaco\u2019s text messages fell into the category of an emergency as allowed for by the family orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Walters J examined three dictionary definitions of the word. In the Macquarie Dictionary \u201cemergency\u201d means \u201can unforeseen occurrence; a sudden and urgent occasion for action\u201d. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as \u201cthe arising, sudden or unexpected occurrence (of a state of things, an event, etc.) a juncture that arises or \u2018turns up\u2019, esp a state of things unexpectedly arising, and urgently demanding immediate action\u201d. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary also defines it as requiring \u201cimmediate action\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Alleged Breaches<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Walter J\u2019s opinion, under the circumstances, Mr Monaco\u2019s first text message \u201c10 am!!\u201d was authorised by the parenting orders as it was sent in a context that could be described as \u201ca state of things unexpectedly arising and urgently demanding immediate action\u201d. Walter J found that Ms Daniels had evidently been running late for the handover, which was to be the first overnight visit since the orders. She had not advised him she was delayed, and Mr Monaco was understandably anxious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He received a call from her phone, which he did not answer, but upon listening to the message, found that Child A had called to clarify the handover time. It was at that point that he sent the first message.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Walters J accepted that Mr Monaco had not intended to communicate directly with Ms Daniels, although he would have been aware that his message would have been passed on to her. In fact, the intended recipient had been Child A. His Honour did not place any weight on the two exclamation marks, noting that \u201cthey indicate no more than a degree of frustration on Mr Monaco\u2019s part\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second message, however, His Honour conceded could not be described as having been sent in an emergency, but was on the part of the father an attempt to alter arrangements, and was directed at Ms Daniels, and not Child A. His Honour was equally not convinced that the third text message \u201cWhere??\u201d could be described \u201cas having been sent in the event of or as a result of an emergency.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His Honour determined that the alleged breach of the VRO resulted from these three short SMS messages, of which two were \u201cinnocuous\u201d. He concluded that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cwith the exception of Mr Monaco\u2019s text message commencing \u201cYou will need to drop her \u2026\u201d, the communications between Mr Monaco and Ms Daniels on the morning of 18 May 2013 were authorised, justified or excused by the provisions of para 9 of the parenting orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His Honour concluded that, on the morning in question, the communications between the parties \u201cwere authorised, justified or excused\u201d by provisions in the parenting orders. \u201cThe first text occurred as a result of or in the event of an emergency, and the third text message was sent after Ms Daniels had effectively given permission to Mr Monaco to contact her on her mobile phone on that occasion.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Keywords: Binding Financial Agreement \u2013 Ambiguous recital (purporting to define when the parties would be deemed to have separated) construed as referring to their actual…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":689,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[49],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nFamily Court Gives Common Sense Meaning to Ambiguous Term in Binding Financial Agreement - Online Community Goldman Lawyers<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Family Court Gives Common Sense Meaning to Ambiguous Term in Binding Financial Agreement - Online Community Goldman Lawyers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Keywords: Binding Financial Agreement \u2013 Ambiguous recital (purporting to define when the parties would be deemed to have separated) construed as referring to their actual…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Online Community Goldman Lawyers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-01-21T04:46:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-01-21T05:10:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Family-Court-Gives-Common-Sense-Meaning-to-Ambiguous-Term-in-Binding-Financial-Agreement.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"243\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"220\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon & Goldman & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon & Goldman & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon & Goldman & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#\/schema\/person\/c6ffeb1ec3dbd0620841c4a595dc5363\"},\"headline\":\"Family Court Gives Common Sense Meaning to Ambiguous Term in Binding Financial Agreement\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-01-21T04:46:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-01-21T05:10:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/\"},\"wordCount\":3203,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Family-Court-Gives-Common-Sense-Meaning-to-Ambiguous-Term-in-Binding-Financial-Agreement.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Family Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/\",\"name\":\"Family Court Gives Common Sense Meaning to Ambiguous Term in Binding Financial Agreement - Online Community Goldman Lawyers\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Family-Court-Gives-Common-Sense-Meaning-to-Ambiguous-Term-in-Binding-Financial-Agreement.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-01-21T04:46:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-01-21T05:10:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Family-Court-Gives-Common-Sense-Meaning-to-Ambiguous-Term-in-Binding-Financial-Agreement.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Family-Court-Gives-Common-Sense-Meaning-to-Ambiguous-Term-in-Binding-Financial-Agreement.jpg\",\"width\":243,\"height\":220},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Family Law\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/category\/family-law\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Family Court Gives Common Sense Meaning to Ambiguous Term in Binding Financial Agreement\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/\",\"name\":\"Online Community Goldman Lawyers\",\"description\":\"Just another WordPress site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Online Community Goldman Lawyers\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/logoheader_final.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/logoheader_final.png\",\"width\":843,\"height\":222,\"caption\":\"Online Community Goldman Lawyers\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#\/schema\/person\/c6ffeb1ec3dbd0620841c4a595dc5363\",\"name\":\"Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon & Goldman & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4bac3846ac3956fe16300665774d807c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4bac3846ac3956fe16300665774d807c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon & Goldman & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/localhost\/buddyboss\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/author\/community-goldman\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Family Court Gives Common Sense Meaning to Ambiguous Term in Binding Financial Agreement - Online Community Goldman Lawyers","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Family Court Gives Common Sense Meaning to Ambiguous Term in Binding Financial Agreement - Online Community Goldman Lawyers","og_description":"Keywords: Binding Financial Agreement \u2013 Ambiguous recital (purporting to define when the parties would be deemed to have separated) construed as referring to their actual…","og_url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/","og_site_name":"Online Community Goldman Lawyers","article_published_time":"2022-01-21T04:46:11+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-01-21T05:10:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":243,"height":220,"url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Family-Court-Gives-Common-Sense-Meaning-to-Ambiguous-Term-in-Binding-Financial-Agreement.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon & Goldman & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon & Goldman & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/"},"author":{"name":"Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon & Goldman & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#\/schema\/person\/c6ffeb1ec3dbd0620841c4a595dc5363"},"headline":"Family Court Gives Common Sense Meaning to Ambiguous Term in Binding Financial Agreement","datePublished":"2022-01-21T04:46:11+00:00","dateModified":"2022-01-21T05:10:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/"},"wordCount":3203,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Family-Court-Gives-Common-Sense-Meaning-to-Ambiguous-Term-in-Binding-Financial-Agreement.jpg","articleSection":["Family Law"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/","url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/","name":"Family Court Gives Common Sense Meaning to Ambiguous Term in Binding Financial Agreement - Online Community Goldman Lawyers","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Family-Court-Gives-Common-Sense-Meaning-to-Ambiguous-Term-in-Binding-Financial-Agreement.jpg","datePublished":"2022-01-21T04:46:11+00:00","dateModified":"2022-01-21T05:10:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Family-Court-Gives-Common-Sense-Meaning-to-Ambiguous-Term-in-Binding-Financial-Agreement.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Family-Court-Gives-Common-Sense-Meaning-to-Ambiguous-Term-in-Binding-Financial-Agreement.jpg","width":243,"height":220},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/family-court-gives-common-sense-meaning-to-ambiguous-term-in-binding-financial-agreement\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Family Law","item":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/category\/family-law\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Family Court Gives Common Sense Meaning to Ambiguous Term in Binding Financial Agreement"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#website","url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/","name":"Online Community Goldman Lawyers","description":"Just another WordPress site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#organization","name":"Online Community Goldman Lawyers","url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/logoheader_final.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/logoheader_final.png","width":843,"height":222,"caption":"Online Community Goldman Lawyers"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#\/schema\/person\/c6ffeb1ec3dbd0620841c4a595dc5363","name":"Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon & Goldman & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4bac3846ac3956fe16300665774d807c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4bac3846ac3956fe16300665774d807c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jaswinder (Jas) Sekhon & Goldman & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/localhost\/buddyboss"],"url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/author\/community-goldman\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/686"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=686"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/686\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":696,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/686\/revisions\/696"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=686"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=686"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/online-law-community\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=686"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}