ACT Matrimonial Home - definition in law

[maintaining_compassion]

I haven't been able to find an actual definition of the term "matrimonial home" in the Australian Family Law Act, although I received a letter form the other party's lawyer using this. It seems the term matrimonial relates specifically to "marriage" and not necessarily to a defacto relationship. Further, I understand the term most likely relates to property that is lived in, not necessarily investment properties.

Is anyone able to confirm what "matrimonial home" means and where I might be able to find the definition in the law act?

 

[Atticus]

Not aware of any definition specifically for 'matrimonial home' within the act.... that said, a definition that specific is not really required. A property that a married couple lived in would normally be accepted to be the matrimonial home, & post separation (to be precise) it would become the former matrimonial home ...... Matrimonial property can include investment properties...

Section 90SM of the Family Law Act, mirrors the provision of alteration of property interests (S79) for de facto couples

 

[Tremaine]

Yes, 'matrimonial home' isn't a defined term in the FLA, but like Atticus said, it doesn't really need to be defined for the purposes of property settlement, anyway. In terms of a property settlement, the house that a married couple owned and lived in, is no different to the house that a de facto couple owned and lived in, is no different to the investment property that a de facto or married couple owned and rented out through a property agency - all are treated the same way in a property settlement in that they all form part of the shared asset pool.

 

[maintaining_compassion]

Yes, 'matrimonial home' isn't a defined term in the FLA, but like Atticus said, it doesn't really need to be defined for the purposes of property settlement, anyway. In terms of a property settlement, the house that a married couple owned and lived in, is no different to the house that a de facto couple owned and lived in, is no different to the investment property that a de facto or married couple owned and rented out through a property agency - all are treated the same way in a property settlement in that they all form part of the shared asset pool.

Thanks, I realise they are all part of the asset pool. But this is about communication between myself and their the lawyer - I've received a letter from my ex-partner's (de facto) lawyer that used the term "matrimonial home" for an investment property jointly owned by me and my ex de facto. I'm particularly concerned that the lawyer has used this terminology , possibly incorrectly, when it might not relate to my specific circumstance of a de facto, jointly owned, investment property. I just want to be able to pull them up on it and demonstrate the lawyers incompetence further (it's there in spades for other issues).

My understanding is that matrimonial in the FLA is actually defined as "marriage" - FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 71 Interpretation
I can't see anything in the act that states the de facto also means matrimonial, although I know it's treated the same in my case.
And "home" implies to me the Principal (or secondary) Place of Residence, not a property used for investment purposes (although I know this is part of the asset pool).
Whilst I know the court will deal with the investment property no differently than a jointly held PPR, I want to ensure their lawyer is using the appropriate terminology. In many jurisdictions overseas, "matrimonial home" means the PPR of a "married" couple.

I'm not really concerned about the treatment in the act, I'm concerned with the use of the terms in the letter from the lawyer so I can adjust my correspondence accordingly.

 

[Tremaine]

Oh, right, so you just want to try and outsmart the ex's lawyer? Sound strategy, let us know how you go.

 

[Atticus]

Agree with tremaine.... Being overly pedantic is not going to achieve anything & won't score you any points with court registrars or judges...

So you were de facto? ....Section 90SM applies to you.. Insisting that the word matrimonial home be removed isn't going to alter a thing

 

[maintaining_compassion]

I have lawyers trying to bend me over a barrel because, seemingly because I'm self representing. Now the second set of lawyers; I assume the first were fired because they weren't competent. But this second set also has demonstrated their gross incompetence. The more ammunition I have against them the better.

 

[Tremaine]

Yes, the courts ask five questions when deciding a property settlement.

1. What’s the value of the shared asset pool?
2. What were the financial and non-financial contributions of each party?
3. What are the future needs of each party?
4. How competent were the parties’ legal representation and did anyone’s lawyer use the term ‘matrimonial home’ even though the parties were not joined in matrimony?
5. Is the settlement just and fair?

My friend, please understand, especially as a self-represented litigant, that trying to be a smarty pants by arguing over terms and phrases that actually mean nothing in a legal sense, instead of just focusing on dividing the property, proves your own incompetence more than it does anyone else’s.

 

[Atticus]

I've received a letter from my ex-partner's (de facto) lawyer that used the term "matrimonial home" for an investment property jointly owned by me and my ex de facto.

As I said, I wouldn't be taking them to task over something like this, HOWEVER, It is proper & reasonable that in your response/s you refer to this property as 'the investment property located at xxxxxx' ..... Just so it's clear to all what property is being referred to (especially important if there are more than one property in the pool)... You would have a much better grounding to then complain if they continue to refer to it as the matrimonial home in future correspondence/forms, just for the sake of clarity..

I have lawyers trying to bend me over a barrel because, seemingly because I'm self representing. ....... The more ammunition I have against them the better.

If you haven't already got this, I recommend having a read ..... It's a very thorough booklet on how to run your family law case...

There is a link to the booklet in the text >>>>> How to run a family law case | Victoria Legal Aid