NSW Divorce - Entitlements in Property Settlement?

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

AmandaPepper

Member
4 January 2016
3
0
1
Hi, I am writing for my father-in-law. His wife left him in December 2014. He is filing for divorce using the divorce kit. The soon to be ex-wife wants to know what she is entitled to. They have been married for 8 years, no kids (eldest stepdaughter is now 18 who he supported since she was 8). They do not own property and they both worked full time for the duration of their marriage. Is she entitled to anything in property settlement?

Thanks so much for your help.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,974
710
2,894
Probably not. Besides by the sounds of things they don't own anything... The marriage meets the criteria of being long (just). Generally with short marriages, each party takes with them what they brought into the relationship.

How much superannuation / assets/ shares, etc? BTW, if she has more super than him then she could have to pay him. Look, based on the info provided I reckon they're better off shaking hands, signing the divorce and moving on.

Once the divorce is stamped by the court, both parties have 12 months to make a claim for assets. Once the 12 months has expired, each party theoretically could make a claim against the other but they would have to be able to establish grounds for the delay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmandaPepper

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,974
710
2,894
Fighting all the way might be a bit crazy. Look, you did say he looked after a step kid for years right? And fighting really can be more trouble than it is worth.

Let me give you an example. Me and the ex had a combined asset pool of $200 000. We had kids and that complicated things. By the time the fight was over, we had given solicitors about $40 000 and we didn't even go to court to get a final settlement. If we fought all the way to court with solicitors and barristers, I'd be willing to be we could have lost $100 000. So my ex would have gotten 65% of $100 000 and not 65% of $200 000. You do the math. Now the reason she got 65% is because I earn good money and she is unemployable. Oh and she was the primary carer of 3 young kids.

Walking away with $20 000 or maybe even $30 000 less is better than getting an extra $40 000 after a 2 year court battle and a solicitor's bill of $50 000.

Please read my first post again. I said it she is probably not entitled to anything because the marriage was relatively short.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmandaPepper

AmandaPepper

Member
4 January 2016
3
0
1
That is a really good suggestion and I totally understand what you are saying. Thanks so much again. I guess we will just have to wait for her move.