Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

intervention order and jointly owned property

Add Topic
hello a very good friend of mine asked his wife for a divorce and the next day he was served with an intervention order and was made to leave their jointly owned property.
he has gone through the courts and they both now have orders out and he is not allowed to go within 200 meters of their property unless police are with him and she has approved.
she stated that he was abusive which is far from the truth as she was the abusive one.
she has only been giving him his personal possessions in small amounts and will not allow him into the house or his shed. she will not give him any of his tools.
the problem at the moment is that they have 2 cows that since he is no longer there to hand feed them they have been breaking through fences and getting into neighbours feed and damaging fences .. as he is not allowed to go to the property he can not repair fences and does not wish for the cows to be sold as they are young and therefore also not ready for killing..
she put these cows on her letter to solicitors as part of property settlement at a hugely exaggerated value.
he does not trust her to sell them for what they are truly worth or even to tell him the correct amount that she got for them if she did sell them.
my question is … can she legally sell them without his permission as there is an intervention order and the judge told her that she is not to sell their jointly owned and his personally owned possessions ?? if she did is she breaking the order ?? we know she has sold some of his things as he has been told and has seen them advertised as for sale but until he can actually get into the buildings he cant find out what has gone. also is he liable for part of the bill for fixing the broken fences ?? hopefully some one can help us with this as we seem to get different answers from different solicitors. there are no children involved in this case . she had 2 children before the marriage that are now grown and married. thank you in advance
Do the cattle have an NILS identifying tag? by law if they were not born on that property then they must do. Even if they were born on the property they must be tagged before ever leaving it.

The owner of the cattle, if they are sold privately has to notify the database of the sale. If the cattle get sold at auction then auction yard is responsible for notifying the database, if sold directly to the meat works then the meat works is responsible. The NILS tag will make it very easy to trace where they have gone if they were to leave the property.

If she were to sell them privately with out updating the database, she could be fined. Your friend should contact the relevant state Department (primary industries) to check out what laws would apply and how to trace the cattle, if they were to be sold/moved on. 

If there is an order to stop her disposing of any assets, then technically I am guessing she would need the courts permission before selling them. The cattle should be able to be appraised or professionally valued just like any other asset, contact the nearest sale yard auctioneer and see if they would be willing to go out do at least a written appraisal.

As the cattle are effecting neighbors, it maybe best they he at least get a solicitor to write to the ex and offer to pay half the cost of getting the fences repaired or see if he can get a mate to go do some labor for free. Legally no one could force him to pay but seeing as he wishes to keep the cattle until they are older it might be in his best interest that they don't get impounded by the council if the neighbors were to complain.

Can he buy feed and have a neighbor or 3rd party feed them? If they are busting out because they are hungry and need hand feeding, someone needs to step up and take responsibility for their welfare. If they get poor and the ex won't feed them or won't agree to having a neighbor/3rd party feed them, then maybe contact the RSPCA on her, as they are on the property she is living on she will likely be the one who will be held responsible for their condition. 
we have just found out  she has sold them and the money has been put in trust. the cattle were tagged so maybe we can trace how much she got for them. thank you for your answer. it seems like there is not a lot he can do about it .the intervention order prevents him from getting a friend to help unless she approves , and so far she has done everything she can to stop him from finding out what is missing from the property. he has photos of everything for insurance purposes that she had tried to delete of his computer. she wont agree to pay half for an evaluation to be done. the furniture is all antique. she has put exaggerated prices on all his tools. and anything of hers she has put under valuations on or left out. it seems like he is following the intervention order to a T and she is doing what ever she wants .
What state are you in? Please do not say WA.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 

Moderator Note
moombie - You should read some of the Moderator posts in this forum about layout and CAPitalisation of sentences.
I think if that things come under the jointly owned possessions that he can't.Otherwise he had a right to sell that without and permission of court.So its depends on your agreement that these was jointly or personally owned.
It might also be worth noting that solicitors and those not opposed to greed all but routinely overstate the value of assets of the other party. It's all but standard practice these days. Solicitors and greedy and/or vindictive ex partners traditionally do it in order to make themselves seem poorer and the other party wealthier which they will then try and use to increase their takings when it comes to dividing assets.

When it's your turn to make full and frank disclosure, state actual market values rather than what you or they think assets might be worth. In doing so, you're doing the right thing and it may also prove useful in discrediting the other party should it become a protracted trial in which asset values are disputed.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets