If I commence separation, how do I protect our assets or debt if he takes out credit or has an accident drink driving? What are my rights? Does evidence of a separation protect me and my children?
SA My financial rights during a seperation
- Thread starter India-Rose
- Start date
So if he has an accident drink driving while you're still married. He is found liable and has to pay $100 000 (by way of example). Then you've got issues because the insurance company will come after what ever assets he owns.
Look credit card debts, that is deliberate, as opposed to an accident drink driving and yes there are protections in law.
Wiser now is not right in asserting that it goes into the same asset pool if you live together for a year.
You May Be In A De facto Relationship Even If You Don't Live Together All Of The Time! - Solari & Stock-Where clients come first
How to protect assets? well stay together, but that is a bad reason to stay with someone... But if you're gonna separate, then get consent orders done with a solicitor asap. There are no guarantees in this world.... Equally, don't win lotto until you get court orders. Let's say you win $200 000 the day after you leave. That $$ will still be part of the asset pool until such time as you get court orders that stipulate that you're separated...
Look credit card debts, that is deliberate, as opposed to an accident drink driving and yes there are protections in law.
Wiser now is not right in asserting that it goes into the same asset pool if you live together for a year.
You May Be In A De facto Relationship Even If You Don't Live Together All Of The Time! - Solari & Stock-Where clients come first
How to protect assets? well stay together, but that is a bad reason to stay with someone... But if you're gonna separate, then get consent orders done with a solicitor asap. There are no guarantees in this world.... Equally, don't win lotto until you get court orders. Let's say you win $200 000 the day after you leave. That $$ will still be part of the asset pool until such time as you get court orders that stipulate that you're separated...
'Not right'?
My posting was a question re assets not a statement about de facto relationships!
That was a statement. Ended with a !
Maybe read before correcting people and allegations of asserting!
The article you have linked to does not provide information on how assets are placed into a family pool re jointly/solely held. It provides info on definition of defacto relationships .. oh and a nice link to a law firm!
The original posting is about asset protection hence my posting asking does it not all going into the family pot after x amount of time or whatever measured is used!
Last edited:
Oh calm down... let's not knit pick about words...u indicated that there is some 'rules' about 1 yr... the answer is NO.
The law firm link uses explains in easy to use language. They don't employ me.
Yep u asked a question about time frame and 1 yr. I answered. No need to say thanks
The law firm link uses explains in easy to use language. They don't employ me.
Yep u asked a question about time frame and 1 yr. I answered. No need to say thanks
I asked that question because of this:
This gives me the impression that OP is worried about her partner taking out new loans / credit against their assets. How those assets are held could affect his ability to do that.
This gives me the impression that OP is worried about her partner taking out new loans / credit against their assets. How those assets are held could affect his ability to do that.
Calm down ... really! Why is it the person who raised their concerns about being told they were not right who has to calm down and not knit pick about words. Seems very narcissistic...
NO! I am afraid not sammy01. You read it wrong.
My question was around you asking how assets were held : jointly or solely...
The 1? was written as an estimate to mean "1? year or so", or whatever the time frame is until you are recognised as defacto. 1? can also mean 6 mths...
Ultimately the judge is going to decide whether the assets are considered jointly held or solely, regardless of whose name they were technically in, unless of course you get consent orders. It's about making a persuasive case about how long you've been together, the exact nature of how the assets were acquired, and the whens, hows, by who, for what purpose etc may all factor into that. Or they might not. It really depends.
I think Sammy and WiserNow are both right in their own ways... The asset pool is effectively assumed to be all jointly held until persuasive arguments are made by one party or the other about why they should not be considered in that way. No doubt there will be plenty of precedents to look at to get a sense of what could be expected in terms of an outcome though.
I think Sammy and WiserNow are both right in their own ways... The asset pool is effectively assumed to be all jointly held until persuasive arguments are made by one party or the other about why they should not be considered in that way. No doubt there will be plenty of precedents to look at to get a sense of what could be expected in terms of an outcome though.
