Divorce and Super - one party pensioned out

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

hassall

Well-Known Member
5 September 2017
22
0
121
Hello,

A dear friend of mine is going through an awful time.

She had ongoing health issues a couple of years ago which led to major brain surgery and being pensioned out of the public service and can no longer work. Then the divorce hit (nice eh?!) which is currently underway. She is in her 50s.

The other party is younger, didn't work much in the early days of their marriage, but is now on a very decent salary and has good future earning capacity. Her super prior to being pensioned out was more than double his.

How does her super get considered in this situation and both parties' capacity to earn? Her super has been quarantined to cover a modest annual salary with no option to add to it.

She is worried she will lose much of what she worked so hard for.

She also has their two kids 95% of the time.

Hope this makes sense and grateful for any wisdom. She can't afford fancy lawyers for obvious reasons!
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
5,152
720
2,894
ok, so there is no ANSWER. There are opinions. So what I mean is there is no set formula for asset division.
Your mate has lots to give her reason the chill. Basically, everything you've mentioned. Pension, primary carer, low earning capacity, his high earning capacity.

How big is the collective asset pool? Is there a house with both names on the title? If there isn't a house with a mortgage / shared title then there is a good chance that this will not see court and might not even see solicitors. He keep his stuff / she keeps her stuff.

Oh, how long they lived together / were married also counts. How old are the kids?

Short sarcastic version. Ask a laywer any of these questions and you'll get this answer 'it depends'. Bloody annoying. But to give your mate some piece of mind - I reckon the rules around asset division are fair. Phew. It really only becomes a problem when one party gets greedy. Story time. I offered my ex 70% of assets. Her response?105% yup 105% So everything and I take a loan to give her some more $$. Madness. She wound up with about 70% but the asset pool had shrunk by about a $50 000 because we'd both sold shares and used the cash to pay lawyers.
 

hassall

Well-Known Member
5 September 2017
22
0
121
Thank you so much for responding.

There is a house - probably worth a lot (not sure of the mortgage) maybe 800k. It will be worth a reasonable amount. She paid most of the mortgage payments off during their early time together. But my understanding is that her pre- relationship (20 years) super is "scared". She was not only the primary earner but was also a carer/mother.

Yes there are two children. She looks after them 95% of the time now because they don't feel comfortable around the ex (who I saw at the shops today and looks like crap).

And yes it is annoying. My friend has wonderful free legal advice because that is all she can afford.

I guess I am looking for precedents in law - not what is "just" (that is a dream. Been there).

If there was no super this would not be an issue - she would get a fair outcome.

But she worked her butt off and is now being punished but can't work because she literally can't work.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
5,152
720
2,894
precedent law doesn't really matter with asset division and family law because no two cases are simmilar enough to warrant comparision.