VIC Opinion on property division - would I have a reasonable chance in court?

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

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,853
690
2,894
Yes - There is also a clause about future needs. So your earning capacity works against you.
Oh and you're male...
BTW to get the house in your name is gonna require solicitors. You wanna get this done by consent. I'd be suggesting you offer her a chunk of your super to get this deal done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rod

SRL1

Active Member
6 September 2021
8
0
31
I'd be suggesting you offer her a chunk of your super to get this deal done.

Never thought of this. Probably the best option under the circumstances.
 

Immismum

Well-Known Member
11 May 2020
29
2
129
One thing I still don't understand:
Both section 79 and the 4-step process says courts will consider the financial contributions made by each party. Higher income throughout the marriage = higher financial contribution to savings and assets, so shouldn't there be at least some adjustment in my favour for that?

My understanding is that in a marriage the amount earnt by each party doesn’t particularly matter.
What you are referring to is more about what was brought to the marriage, in other words, did one party own a house before the marriage, and did either party receives a inheritance or workers compensation payout for example during the marriage.
 

GlassHalfFull

Well-Known Member
28 August 2018
480
45
714
Never thought of this. Probably the best option under the circumstances.
Although given that super isn't liquid and can't be used for anything (like putting towards a deposit on a house elsewhere) for quite some time into the future, you may have to offer more in super than the equivalent in cash...
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,853
690
2,894
Hey - I was advise the opposite. I could give her less cash and keep more super because she got the benefit of the cash NOW and I had to risk the slings and arrows of the markets before getting my super at 65
 

GlassHalfFull

Well-Known Member
28 August 2018
480
45
714
Hey - I was advise the opposite. I could give her less cash and keep more super because she got the benefit of the cash NOW and I had to risk the slings and arrows of the markets before getting my super at 65
True, but it all comes down to the other party's perception I suppose. I'd imagine most middle-aged people would much prefer the cash up front following a divorce so they can use it to rebuild their lives rather than think about funding their retirement.
 

SRL1

Active Member
6 September 2021
8
0
31
An update:

Ex has filed a court application. She doesn't want my super as she can't get immediate access to the funds.

I have hired a lawyer to advice me so things are under control for now.

Many thanks to everyone who responded.
 

WiserNow

Well-Known Member
10 September 2014
108
16
454
If you keep the house, you won’t need to pay stamp duty, mortgage insurance or anything else. That is worth real money even if it isn’t part of the asset pool.
in my lay opinion, the fact that you earns more money doesn’t entitle you to more of the asset pool. If everything is basically even with child rearing, both working and having the kids 50/50, then you’d expect someth8ng like 50/50 split. If anything there might be an adjustment in her favour as the lower earner (although as you are older that might cancel it out).
Why did you make reference to 'her' as the lower earner. I cannot see where SLR1 mentions gender until one of the final post
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,853
690
2,894
"Why did you make reference to 'her' as the lower earner. I cannot see where SLR1 mentions gender until one of the final post"
Intuition. Which proved to be right...
So I fail to see the problem.