VIC More Information About Division of Superannuation?

Discussion in 'Family Law Forum' started by Dermie23, 21 November 2017.

  1. Dermie23

    Dermie23 Member

    Joined:
    21 November 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just wondering if anyone can confirm / deny what I noticed on another thread in relation to superannuation splitting when getting a divorce.

    Is only the superannuation earned during the relationship taken into consideration? All I've read is that the entire superannuation of both parties is totalled, then divided by the agreed % for the asset pool.

    It seems odd to me that the financial position of both parties when the relationship started is taken into consideration when deciding how to split the asset pool, but super is just totalled and split, regardless of each parties balance when the relationship started.

    Here is the link to the post:
    NSW - Sharing Superannuation
     
  2. sammy01

    sammy01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 September 2015
    Messages:
    2,549
    Likes Received:
    359
    There are no hard and fast rules. Everything about asset division is done on a case by case basis. In my case, we came to an agreement through negotiation with solicitors. I had lots of super prior to meeting the ex and that was factored into the split in my favour
     
  3. AllForHer

    AllForHer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 July 2014
    Messages:
    3,664
    Likes Received:
    667
    Okay, look at superannuation as a matter of equity.

    Person A spends 50 years working in a high-paying career, then in his twilight years, he meets a nice partner, Person B, who has spent their life doing what they love - selling arts and crafts at local markets. Both are now ready to settle down and retire, so they move into a house together and get married at a court ceremony.

    Two years later, Person B decides to call it quits for whatever reason.

    Is it equitable for Person B, whose super fund is nearing on non-existent, to be entitled to 50% of Person A's very impressive super fund, after they have worked 50 years to build it?

    The answer is no.

    So, that's a very simple way of looking at a reason why only super accumulated during the relationship is considered, and not the total balance.

    Why doesn't the same really apply to other assets? Well, because other assets are basically expenses - a certain price was paid for the asset, and they retain whatever value, regardless of what each party is actually earning. Superannuation, on the other hand, is more like an income - it very much is dependent on what each party is earning. See the difference?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  4. Dermie23

    Dermie23 Member

    Joined:
    21 November 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK thanks for your answers, what you have said makes sense to me.

    I couldn't find any info like what you have both suggested. All I could find was that it was totalled and split based on the % of the asset pool.
     
  5. MelbourneDad

    MelbourneDad Member

    Joined:
    Friday
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think issues of Family Law would be a lot less expensive and complex for everyone if the Family Law court just had the guts to publish some basic outlines like above without the 3 million exceptions to the rules. A simple rule with exceptions at the bottom.

    Every time I start reading the Government websites they start talking about family violence and if I am Aboriginal rather than answering the basic framework questions. No wonder there are so many adverts online for lawyers!!
     
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...
gt;