Hi. This is somewhat following up from a previous thread that had been extensively discussed here: Filing for property matters - question on date of divorce
Long story short, at the final hour, my ex, her solicitor and I (self representing on the matter) came to an agreement in principle about the division of property. I had pushed them to this agreement as my ex held virtually all assets and would retain them if we did not file within 1 year of our divorce. Because of the rushed last minute nature of it, they confirmed that they would respect the agreement and I could use the solicitor's email as confirmation of the agreement if I needed to take the matter to court after it would otherwise be 'too late'.
Initially, her lawyer proposed that I write up the application and minute of consent orders and I said that given they were legally qualified and I was not, that they was best placed to do this. They agreed to do so. 5 months has now gone by, and the lawyer has been dragging their feet. A few drafts and misrepresentations of the in principle agreement have been sent to me that I have rejected, and finally it seems that we are now in agreement and the minute of consent orders and application for consent orders are now written up and sent to me for approval.
My concern is this... her lawyer has written the application up with myself as the applicant and their client as the respondent. I'm not sure if that makes any difference at all given the fees are the same for both parties, but there are certain sections where I feel they are putting words in my mouth (as the applicant). As in, they are literally writing in the section for the applicant arguments or values that favour their client.
For example, when we separated, I had a car in my name that my dad had purchased for me/the family. This car (let's call it car #1) was retained by my ex for her exclusive use when I was effectively kicked out of the house via an IVO even though the car was in my name. So then about 12 months after our separation, I managed to save up income to buy myself a new car - lets call it car #2. So as things currently stand, I TECHNICALLY have two cars registered in my name and she has none in her name, but she has had possession of the family car (#1) for almost 4 years now while we were sorting out our financial separation and I bought my car AFTER our separation using own income. I feel like morally speaking the family car #1 was (and still is) jointly owned despite being in my name, and the car I purchased since our separation was never hers at all but if indeed it must be included in the calculations at all then surely it shouldn't appear to be something that I would retain from the settlement?
Her solicitor included in our 'assets and liabilities' both of those cars as "my assets" and put her assets down as zero, effectively. Despite the fact that at separation, she retained the car and and all our furniture, white goods and all other chattels, and I left the house with very little other than my clothes and a few personal items like my computer and other things that were legitimately personal items of mine. I know that any assets acquired 'after separation but before financial settlement' can be fair game but I don't consider it reasonable in this instance to pretend she has had nothing at all and I have had 2 cars when the reality is the other way around. How would you show the reality of that situation with the application for consent orders? I'm kind of confused about how it can be expressed on the application form so that it doesn't get manipulated to look like I'm simply giving one of my two cars back to her.
Should it have been expressed that rather than the car being 'mine', that in fact it was always 50% hers and 50% mine and therefore the value of motor vehicles owned by each of us should be $5,000 each rather than $10,000 under my assets and $0 in hers? How should car #2 that I scrimped and saved following our separation be expressed? Is it fair that it is viewed as something that is allocated to me in the separation and its value calculated as though we owned it jointly?
Anyway, on top of all that, she has considerably more super than me (3 or 4 times as much). Our in principle agreement was that we would keep our own super and not split it up simply because I felt that was 'fair' and it would simplify my life if I didn't have to take it to court. But it seems that her solicitor is attempting to paint a very different picture to our realities in the application. For example, under the "proposed division of finances", he states (in my applicant column) that I get 26% and she gets 74% and in that applicant column, her lawyer has written words on my behalf (???) to say "It is noted that the proposed percentage division of the property including superannuation is skewed on the basis that the parties are retaining significant liabilities incurred as a result of the family law parenting proceedings that have been resolved.". I don't agree with what her solicitor has said at all. Yes, my outstanding debt to my lawyer is significantly higher than hers (Mine is $40k+ vs $8k for her) but probably that is because she has been able to pay more of it off since she has a significantly higher income than I do ($130k vs $75k for me). The main reason it is skewed in her favour is because superannuation is not being split. If super were to be redistributed 50/50 for example, our overall division of finances would be closer to 50/50.
Also under the "effects of financial orders sought", her lawyer has stated that in effect, I would receive $8000 from my car (which I purchased entirely with income received after separation) and that I would receive "furniture, furnishings and effects" of a value of $10,000 while she would receive "nominal", when in fact this is absolute BS because she kept EVERYTHING in our house and she only agreed to give me most of my personal items after 3 years (and numerous letters to her lawyers) and which have a value far less than $10k.
Furthermore, I'm confused because under "effects of financial orders sought", I cannot see anywhere that super should appear as an asset that would be retained. Because that's our most significant asset and the omission of that skews the way the settlement is shown considerably because her solicitor and made it seem like it's a fair and balanced settlement when the reality is that it's FIRMLY skewed in her favour. I wonder if he is doing this because the judge may not accept our consent orders if they felt that it was not fair on me?
Long story short, at the final hour, my ex, her solicitor and I (self representing on the matter) came to an agreement in principle about the division of property. I had pushed them to this agreement as my ex held virtually all assets and would retain them if we did not file within 1 year of our divorce. Because of the rushed last minute nature of it, they confirmed that they would respect the agreement and I could use the solicitor's email as confirmation of the agreement if I needed to take the matter to court after it would otherwise be 'too late'.
Initially, her lawyer proposed that I write up the application and minute of consent orders and I said that given they were legally qualified and I was not, that they was best placed to do this. They agreed to do so. 5 months has now gone by, and the lawyer has been dragging their feet. A few drafts and misrepresentations of the in principle agreement have been sent to me that I have rejected, and finally it seems that we are now in agreement and the minute of consent orders and application for consent orders are now written up and sent to me for approval.
My concern is this... her lawyer has written the application up with myself as the applicant and their client as the respondent. I'm not sure if that makes any difference at all given the fees are the same for both parties, but there are certain sections where I feel they are putting words in my mouth (as the applicant). As in, they are literally writing in the section for the applicant arguments or values that favour their client.
For example, when we separated, I had a car in my name that my dad had purchased for me/the family. This car (let's call it car #1) was retained by my ex for her exclusive use when I was effectively kicked out of the house via an IVO even though the car was in my name. So then about 12 months after our separation, I managed to save up income to buy myself a new car - lets call it car #2. So as things currently stand, I TECHNICALLY have two cars registered in my name and she has none in her name, but she has had possession of the family car (#1) for almost 4 years now while we were sorting out our financial separation and I bought my car AFTER our separation using own income. I feel like morally speaking the family car #1 was (and still is) jointly owned despite being in my name, and the car I purchased since our separation was never hers at all but if indeed it must be included in the calculations at all then surely it shouldn't appear to be something that I would retain from the settlement?
Her solicitor included in our 'assets and liabilities' both of those cars as "my assets" and put her assets down as zero, effectively. Despite the fact that at separation, she retained the car and and all our furniture, white goods and all other chattels, and I left the house with very little other than my clothes and a few personal items like my computer and other things that were legitimately personal items of mine. I know that any assets acquired 'after separation but before financial settlement' can be fair game but I don't consider it reasonable in this instance to pretend she has had nothing at all and I have had 2 cars when the reality is the other way around. How would you show the reality of that situation with the application for consent orders? I'm kind of confused about how it can be expressed on the application form so that it doesn't get manipulated to look like I'm simply giving one of my two cars back to her.
Should it have been expressed that rather than the car being 'mine', that in fact it was always 50% hers and 50% mine and therefore the value of motor vehicles owned by each of us should be $5,000 each rather than $10,000 under my assets and $0 in hers? How should car #2 that I scrimped and saved following our separation be expressed? Is it fair that it is viewed as something that is allocated to me in the separation and its value calculated as though we owned it jointly?
Anyway, on top of all that, she has considerably more super than me (3 or 4 times as much). Our in principle agreement was that we would keep our own super and not split it up simply because I felt that was 'fair' and it would simplify my life if I didn't have to take it to court. But it seems that her solicitor is attempting to paint a very different picture to our realities in the application. For example, under the "proposed division of finances", he states (in my applicant column) that I get 26% and she gets 74% and in that applicant column, her lawyer has written words on my behalf (???) to say "It is noted that the proposed percentage division of the property including superannuation is skewed on the basis that the parties are retaining significant liabilities incurred as a result of the family law parenting proceedings that have been resolved.". I don't agree with what her solicitor has said at all. Yes, my outstanding debt to my lawyer is significantly higher than hers (Mine is $40k+ vs $8k for her) but probably that is because she has been able to pay more of it off since she has a significantly higher income than I do ($130k vs $75k for me). The main reason it is skewed in her favour is because superannuation is not being split. If super were to be redistributed 50/50 for example, our overall division of finances would be closer to 50/50.
Also under the "effects of financial orders sought", her lawyer has stated that in effect, I would receive $8000 from my car (which I purchased entirely with income received after separation) and that I would receive "furniture, furnishings and effects" of a value of $10,000 while she would receive "nominal", when in fact this is absolute BS because she kept EVERYTHING in our house and she only agreed to give me most of my personal items after 3 years (and numerous letters to her lawyers) and which have a value far less than $10k.
Furthermore, I'm confused because under "effects of financial orders sought", I cannot see anywhere that super should appear as an asset that would be retained. Because that's our most significant asset and the omission of that skews the way the settlement is shown considerably because her solicitor and made it seem like it's a fair and balanced settlement when the reality is that it's FIRMLY skewed in her favour. I wonder if he is doing this because the judge may not accept our consent orders if they felt that it was not fair on me?