WA Period for defacto claim on property

[FriendOfOrion]

Hello, I have heard conflicting advice on the period of cohabitation that an estranged defacto can make claims on a persons property. In this case, there are no children and one person in the relationship has much more in assets than the other.

Some have said that after co-habiting for 1 year and the relationship subsequently breaking up, a claim can be made of up to 50% of a person assets accumulated over a life time.

Others have said that no substantial claim can be made for 'short term relationships'. (Short term could be less than 4 years.) Can I have a brief clarification for this?

 

[AllForHer]

So, there are two components to this question. The first is whether a de facto relationship exists. The second is determining a property settlement if the parties are eligible for one.

De facto relationships are defined under 4AA of the Family Law Act - http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s4aa.html

If the relationship fits the description in s 4AA, then a de facto relationship exists, which means the parties are eligible for property settlement.

A property settlement is whatever the parties agree to, or whatever the Court decides if the parties can't agree, so there's no hard and fast rules about who gets what and what percentage either party is entitled to.

As a matter of interest, the trend for 'short' relationships (say, five years and under) is that each party leaves with mostly whatever they brought into the relationship, but that's not a rule, it's just a trend. It's always best to get legal advice (and indeed, it's mandatory for all property settlements).

 

[Lennon]

I think FriendOfOrion is in WA, in which case it is not s4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) but s205Z of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) that applies.

The provisions are quite different. In WA the Family Court Act 1997 specifies that a court may only make an order in relation to a de facto relationship if it is satisfied that:
(a) there has been a de facto relationship between the partners for at least 2 years; or
(b) or there is a child of the relationship who is not yet 18 and failure to make an order would result in serious injustice to the partner caring for the child; or
(c) the de facto partner who applies for the order made substantial contributions during the relationship and failure to make the order would result in serious injustice.

 

[AllForHer]

Oh, my apologies. I didn't check the State before answering. Attention to detail!

 

[FriendOfOrion]

I think FriendOfOrion is in WA, in which case it is not s4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) but s205Z of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) that applies.

The provisions are quite different. In WA the Family Court Act 1997 specifies that a court may only make an order in relation to a de facto relationship if it is satisfied that:
(a) there has been a de facto relationship between the partners for at least 2 years; or
(b) or there is a child of the relationship who is not yet 18 and failure to make an order would result in serious injustice to the partner caring for the child; or
(c) the de facto partner who applies for the order made substantial contributions during the relationship and failure to make the order would result in serious injustice.

Thanks very much for your help.
It looks like the advice " She lives with you for 1 year and takes half of everything you have ever accumulated," is over the top alarm-ism like I thought. I would like to think that the "Trend" mentioned by 'AllForHer' would be agreed to by both parties and also by any Family court. I'm surprised that there is no mathematical rule such as a sliding scale. For example ..a certain percent after 4 years together with the percentage going up as the time together lengthened.

 

[SamanthaJay]

There's always a binding financial agreement you could look at. Unfortunately, relationships aren't that cut and dry as a sliding scale.