NSW Help with de facto property settlement and partner living in my house

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

Cairnsdad

Well-Known Member
10 January 2016
42
10
149
Mate you need to see a lawyer asap to start the ball rolling to get her out of the house. Ultimately she is now a tenant given your relationship is over and you are paying the mortgage and outgoings so she is living there free of charge hoping to use her presence and her new boyfriend to make you want to pay her out. I am guessing you don't shop with her at Woolies now sharing the food bill so you need a lawyer to cover you while you legally get rid of her.
 

Cairnsdad

Well-Known Member
10 January 2016
42
10
149
Maybe tell her nothing will be sorted out financially until she has left the house might help.
 

SJM1986

Well-Known Member
16 May 2017
23
2
124
Maybe tell her nothing will be sorted out financially until she has left the house might help.
The problem is that, to her credit, she has been trying to move out but with no rental history she is having some challenges finding somewhere to go.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
5,152
720
2,894
Is she working?
Get her outa the house, offer her a few grand to get set up... If she is seeing someone else then maybe they could shack up.

Look once she is out she will then have to pursue you through the courts. Someone mentioned giving her $30 000. Might be a reasonable figure, who knows - but once she is out she will have to pursue you through the courts. It will not be worth her while and she will disappear if you play smart...

I'd offer her $5000 to leave by a certain date, then change the locks.
 

Rod

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
27 May 2014
7,726
1,056
2,894
www.hutchinsonlegal.com.au
That would be great, if she contributed something to it.

Wrong way to look at it. By moving in with you she has forgone the opportunity to buy her own house/apartment. You have elected to pool your resources, now you have the difficulty in untangling them. Of course her lawyer is going to go for a larger amount, no different to you wanting a smaller amount/nothing. You either strike an agreement or you'll likely be in court. Choose your poison.
 

SJM1986

Well-Known Member
16 May 2017
23
2
124
Wrong way to look at it. By moving in with you she has forgone the opportunity to buy her own house/apartment. You have elected to pool your resources, now you have the difficulty in untangling them. Of course her lawyer is going to go for a larger amount, no different to you wanting a smaller amount/nothing. You either strike an agreement or you'll likely be in court. Choose your poison.

And knowing the facts and figures, you think $65k is even remotely in the ball park? It doesn't even seem conceivable to me. That's almost half the equity in the apartment, when her contribution was $0.00.
 

Cairnsdad

Well-Known Member
10 January 2016
42
10
149
Mate I think what Rod is trying to say is that sometimes it is cheaper in the long run and far less emotionally taxing to find a figure to make it all go away. Her lawyer has likely shot for the 'hail mary' end of the spectrum which is what you'd expect them to do. They would have also likely told her that to go to trial will cost her a lot of money and by the time it is all sorted there won't be a lot left for her so to call your bluff and see.

You need to get professional advice asap because it can't be comfortable living together while this is all starting.
 

SJM1986

Well-Known Member
16 May 2017
23
2
124
Mate I think what Rod is trying to say is that sometimes it is cheaper in the long run and far less emotionally taxing to find a figure to make it all go away. Her lawyer has likely shot for the 'hail mary' end of the spectrum which is what you'd expect them to do. They would have also likely told her that to go to trial will cost her a lot of money and by the time it is all sorted there won't be a lot left for her so to call your bluff and see.

You need to get professional advice asap because it can't be comfortable living together while this is all starting.
Thanks, I had assumed this to be the case and I severely hope that this Hail Mary figure gets reduced considerably.

It's terrible having her living there and for as long as she is I can't move on or receive any rent, so I need this sorted asap.

She's in talks about moving in with a work colleague and hopefully I will know more about this tomorrow. If I were her though, I would just stay there, she's set at the moment and can put back money as she pleases.
 

SJM1986

Well-Known Member
16 May 2017
23
2
124
I'm going to leave this one here, as an example of what I am referring to. Our relationship was less than 5 years, with less than 4.5 years of co-habitation and no children.

Does a short relationship make any difference in a property settlement decision?
10-March-2017 Family Law By Mel Collins
Generally speaking, Family Law considers a relationship as ‘short’ if lasts less than five years.
As with every property matter, however, the distribution of assets, superannuation and liabilities depends on the individual circumstances of the case and the level of financial and non-financial contribution to the asset pool by each party.
Streeterlaw’s Simone Green, an Accredited Specialist in Family Law, said: “In circumstances where one party has brought in significantly more assets, it is more likely in a short marriage or relationship that the contributor to those assets will retain either all or most of the benefit of those assets. This is particularly true in circumstances where the parties have otherwise kept their finances separate and there are no children born of the relationship.”
However, it’s important to note that the Family Law Act does confer the power on the Court to alter existing ownership in property. Just because one person owns property prior to the relationship, there is no guarantee that they will be able to retain it after separation. The Court will always consider the circumstances of the couple and decide whether it is just and equitable to divide the assets.
The longer the relationship, the less likely that full weight will be given to the initial contributions by a party. This is because contributions might be made in other ways to the general asset pool by the other party, even non-financial contributions such as parenting contributions of children of the parties, or non-paid labour in respect to renovations.
Recent case study
In the case of Rose & Mitchell [2016] FCCA 771 (14 April 2016) the parties lived together for just over three years. The asset pool was modest and mostly consisted of the equity in the marital home the husband owned prior to the marriage. The judge found that the parties had both made contributions during the marriage and the wife had “the major burden of looking after their child”. The judge made an assessment of the parties’ contribution with 90 per cent coming from the husband and 10 per cent the wife, and then awarded the wife a further 15 per cent for her future needs, laying particular emphasis upon the wife’s future child-rearing responsibilities. So the final result in the overall settlement of the asset pool saw 75 per cent allocated to the husband and 25 per cent to the wife.
Ms Green commented, “It is unlikely that there would have been any further adjustment (of 15 per cent) for future needs if the couple did not have children.”
When assessing the asset pool, the Court may either take a global approach; that is, it collectively combines all assets and liabilities into one pool; or they can take a separate pool approach for items such as superannuation and/or initial contributions.
Ms Green said a separate pool approach is often adopted in cases involving short relationships. “Where there are significant assets brought into the relationship by one or both parties to which the other party has made little or no contribution, a separate pool approach usually adopted,” she said. “In these situations, the Court would then look to assessing the contribution each party made to the separate pools and may make, for instance, separate percentage splits if it deems it just and equitable to do so.”
For further information or advice, please contact the Family Law experts at Streeterlaw on 81970105 or email [email protected].


Does a short relationship make any difference in a property settlement decision? | Streeterlaw Sydney Lawyers - Family & Divorce Lawyers | Commercial & Business Law