WA Amicable Separation 6yrs ago - debt accrued post separation who is responsible for what?

[Dovetail]

I separated from my husband six years ago and it has been amicable.

When I left him he was relatively debt free except for the mortgage on the family home. I have since learnt that he has accrued considerable debt (approx $100K) with no assets to show for it and I'm scared that I will be responsible for his increasing debt.

I have since retrained and now have a stable, well paying job. Our children, youngest now 18, live with me in a rental property. I lodged but never claimed Child Support for them.

He continues to pay the mortgage and live in the family home with a "tenant" (no official tenancy agreement & I receive no income). The home is in a location where it will be hard to sell and we'd be lucky to cover the current mortgage if it did sell. He is also unable to buy me out due to the debt that he has. I am not interested in buying him out but would like my name off the title so I can move forward.

I went to see a lawyer who drew up an agreement 60/40 in his favour as it works out that I have more assets than he does, namely my Super of $90K and a little savings. He has withdrawn and spent what little he had left of his Super in the last two years under the hardship rules

I rung the National Debt Helpline who said I shouldn't be responsible for his debt yet my lawyer has factored it into the split stating it has to be a "fair and equitable" split. I am now just confused as to who is responsible for what.

We're pretty simple people and all we wanted was to go our separate ways with what we currently have. I'm happy for him to have the house and all his current debt to himself and for me to retain my Super and what little I worked hard for in the last six years and move forward. He feels the same way. I didn't think it would be this hard, in fact I thought it quite simple until I spoke to a lawyer.

I guess my biggest question is why are the assets I accrued and the debt he accrued since separation come into the split? Is what my lawyer calculated right? I think this is grossly unfair.

I've also thought that the only option with the house is to attempt to sell it, even at a loss, and pay off that debt as well. Any other ideas?

Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[sammy01]

Are you looking at buying a house any time soon? If no then do nothing.

Are you divorced? Do that at the very least. That will give you some legal protection moving forward. 2 years after divorce the ex needs to seek special request to get a court order about assets. Sounds like he isn't interested

Look the problem here is the solicitors always get $$.

Plan B. Get consent orders done that stipulate that he buys you out. I believe he would have to pay half stamp duty on the house. Either way the whole thing is gonna cost you both $$$ in the vicinity of $10k.

 

[Atticus]

I am not interested in buying him out but would like my name off the title so I can move forward.......
I rung the National Debt Helpline who said I shouldn't be responsible for his debt yet my lawyer has factored it into the split stating it has to be a "fair and equitable" split. I am now just confused as to who is responsible for what.

To meet the stamp duty exemption you need orders or a Binding Financial Agreement (BFA) .... If you submit consent orders the court registrar has a duty to consider the 'fair & equitable' element of any proposed order, That said, the act does also state fair & equitable IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES... It may be that you submit it, & there is an issue requiring further information before it's stamped.

Other alternative is that you have a BFA drawn up... No court scrutiny involved, but you both need to have independent legal advice. May be worth asking your lawyer about this option.