VIC Property Settlement Questions for Short De Facto Relationship

[SJM1986]

ok so she won't accept $10 000.
Firstly, I'd get a second opionon.

She can believe what she wants. This stuff is a game of strategy.... Offer her something realistic... Now after 4 1/2 years, I reckon it is a short relationship and as suchshe isn't entitled to much at all... So like I said, she can believe what she wants... Let her take up the pepsi challenge of taking it to court... She has 2yrs after separation to make a claim through court... So offering something low and saying get stuffed, no more negotiating is a good strategy... She might come back with something that is more reasonable, she might not. But i still think it is a good strategy.

So is seeing another solicitor.
So to answer questions... Hec's debt could be deemed as a debt in one person's name, but in family law, it could be a shared debt.
Income only kinda matters, asssets matter more than annual income.

Next "2. Can the ex-partner assert that she is entitled to 50% of the available, non-quarantined, asset pool based on claiming that she was the homemaker?" she can assert it but you can refute it. Especially if no kids involved...

Next
"In a short relationship, what role does superannuation play" YUP super is included... BUT there are lots of vairables. so in my case we negotiated she got a smaller piece of pie because she was getting the tangible assets BUT I was going to have to wait till I'm 65 to get my hands on assets.... The fact that I had a good super pile of money before we met was also reason for some of it to be quaranteened.

BUT my 7 yr marrage with 3 kids still saw negotiations go her way in one important aspect as far as you're concerned. She came into the relationship with about $150 000 from an inheritance... Even after 7 years her initial financial contribution was still considered a factor and a reason for her getting more of the pie... So for that reason I reckon your 4 1/2 relationship should be all the more factored into.

Look I'm gonna be blunt - the % of asset split in cases without kids etc etc - Basically cases like you'rs are dependent on the size of the balls of the solicitors... Now it would appear to me that your ex's expectations are way too high....

Oops one more thing - Future needs... Your age matters here... If she is 60 and earns substantially less that you, then future needs could hurt... If you're in your 30's then this is less an issue.

Thanks. I'm 30, she's 28. She earned less than me due to starting on a lower salary and being unemployed 4 times in 4 years.

She now earns almost as much as I do.

Do you know if the contributions are calcuated as net or gross earnings?

Also re HECS. Mine is paid off, but during the relationship I was making payments on it, which could potentially reduce my net contribution.

 

[sammy01]

Not to sure about hecs.

Mate at your age, I'd be going hard. Offer her $10 000 grand go away money and tell her if she wants more she can apply to court... Be assertive... If she applies to court, get back to us...

Remember everything that happens prior to court is just play, fun and games.. Court is where it gets serious.

Sorry I'm struggling with the finances can you outline (ball park) her $$ contributions and your contributions, including super and what you both had prior to relationship....

 

[SJM1986]

We will start by offering something really low I am sure, but I know what she is aiming for.

 

[SJM1986]

The property pool consists of:

In my possession:

Apartment in my name: $330k - $380k (awaiting the certified valuation to arrive). $211k in outstanding mortgage against it. $30k should be quarantined as this was my initial depasit 3 months before we moved in together.

Car: $4k (but just had to pay $3.5k in repairs on it as she returned it to me stuffed - have provided the invoice to my solicitor) so maybe count the car as $1k

Shares: $8k but I'd say $3k of that would be quarantined.

Superannuation: $65k ($20k quarantined)


In her possession:

Bank account: $10k (she failed to disclose this but was stupid enough to keep having the statement sent to my mailing address)

Jewellery: engagement ring which I paid $8k for with valuation certificate stating $11k (although I'm sure this will be depreciated)

Car: $6k

Superannuation: $20k estimated (None quarantined).

Household contents: $20k all bought within the past year. Furniture, television set etc (these will be depreciated of course)

 

[sammy01]

So someone lives with you for 4 or 5 years. There is a ball park figure of $100 000 equity in the home. She should get half of that even though she didn't pay half the mortgage? No way..

Offer her $10 000 - 15 000 cash, maybe offer her a chunk of your super, maybe another $10 000 in super...

If she refuses, invite her to take you to court... Taking it to court is gonna cost $15 000 to $20 000 and the court might give her a little bit more than what your offering. So she can spend $15 000 to go to court to get $30 000 from you... She will still only wind up with $15 000. So if she has half a brain, she should realise it isn't worth it...

And frankly, just because you live with someone for 4-5 years does not automatically mean they own half your stuff...

 

[Rod]

50/50 of what is acquired during a relationship seems fair to me.

By moving in with you she has forgone the opportunity to establish her own house. She would not have moved in if you didn't want her to, and if you want the benefits of the relationship, be prepared for the consequences when the relationship ends.

 

[SJM1986]

50/50 of what is acquired during a relationship seems fair to me.

By moving in with you she has forgone the opportunity to establish her own house. She would not have moved in if you didn't want her to, and if you want the benefits of the relationship, be prepared for the consequences when the relationship ends.

Really?

So even though I earned over 2/3 of the household income and she was unemployed 4 times in the space of 4 years, she deserves half?

Everything I've read suggests that in short relationships (those under 5 years), significant weighting is given to direct financial contributions.

You could try to assert, as she is doing, that she was the homemaker and made non-financial contributions. But with no kids and only a two bedroom apartment which we could clean from top to bottom in 2 hours every second weekend, that sounds laughable to me.

I sponsored her to move out to this country and she came with nothing but $5k on her to help pay for her visa and a suitcase full of clothes.

If she lived on her own she would not have been able to afford a house, I barely could on my pay even in Sydney's market in 2012, today I would have no chance.

50/50 of what was obtained during out relationship is NOT fair. By that logic, she could take half even if she didn't earn a dime and sat on her butt all day. Do you give any consideration to contributions at all?

Thank god the law doesn't work like that.

 

[Rod]

You convinced her to move countries, probably away from friends and family, to be with you. She lost the opportunity in her own home country and had to try and make a fresh start. Supporting someone through unemployment is what a loving partner is supposed to do. If you don't love them and don't want to support them then you end the relationship early, not allow them to live with you and deny them the chance to get ahead (or not) by themselves.

It is unfair to receive the benefit of the relationship and then retrospectively say goodby now I've had enough of you and you get nothing, or next to nothing.

I'm not saying it necessarily the law, but what is fair or not fair. And this is from someone who got cleaned up by his ex. I still remember sleeping on a mattress on a floor in a rent house shivering from the cold after being told to leave the family home I largely paid for. Been there, rebuilt and now consider 50/50 is a good starting point. If you don't like it, then tell your partner up front, BEFORE she moves in what the conditions are (ie house is all yours) and see if she moves in. Doing it retrospectively your way is unfair to the other person.

Women often contribute more to home than can be seen financially. The law recognises this and this is a good thing.

 

[SJM1986]

You convinced her to move countries, probably away from friends and family, to be with you. She lost the opportunity in her own home country and had to try and make a fresh start. Supporting someone through unemployment is what a loving partner is supposed to do. If you don't love them and don't want to support them then you end the relationship early, not allow them to live with you and deny them the chance to get ahead (or not) by themselves.

It is unfair to receive the benefit of the relationship and then retrospectively say goodby now I've had enough of you and you get nothing, or next to nothing.

I'm not saying it necessarily the law, but what is fair or not fair. And this is from someone who got cleaned up by his ex. I still remember sleeping on a mattress on a floor in a rent house shivering from the cold after being told to leave the family home I largely paid for. Been there, rebuilt and now consider 50/50 is a good starting point. If you don't like it, then tell your partner up front, BEFORE she moves in what the conditions are (ie house is all yours) and see if she moves in. Doing it retrospectively your way is unfair to the other person.

We actually began talking because of how much she hated life in her home country and she wanted to move to Australia. The decision to move here was also equally hers. We were never married, we are de facto and under American law, with the house in my name, she would get nothing at all. She has struck it lucky in us breaking up and her realising that Australian law is a lot more generous to those in her position.

On the topic of being a 'loving partner' - I was actually subject to a lot of financial abuse across the duration of our relationship. That's actually why I ended it. Enough was enough.

My money was always "our" money and her money was always her money, so she did with hers as she wished. But mine on the other hand always went towards the bills or the house.

She refused to help repair my apartment which we lived in - it was 'my apartment not hers' and if we broke up then she wouldn't recoup that money. Then when we break up it is suddenly "our apartment" and she wants half. I can't even rent it out and generate income from it due to the state of disrepair. I have had to move in with my mother to try to save for renovations to even be able to get some rental income from it and to keep on top of my legal bills.

She spent recklessly even despite the arguments and objections. Her dining out bill was $350-400 per week, which was significantly more than the mortgage. She bought holidays, pets, horses (not kidding), cars we didn't need (which I told her not to be and broke down soon after needing $7k in repairs) and left me today with more debt than the day she landed in Australia as I had to keep going to the bank to borrow more and more money to pay off my credit card and support her spending habits.

Even to this day she is hiding money.

Her 'financial disclosure' from her solicitor consisted of nothing more than our joint bank statements, an appraisal from a real estate agent which she lied to obtain a higher value on and 3 group certificates in which she cherry picked the 3 years most favourable to her.

She completely neglected to mention her own bank account (which I've since found out has $10k in it), her superannuation, her car, $20k in household contents and two engagement rings that I bought. Sneaky much?

Are these things that a 'loving partner' would do? If we are being fair, with the abuse she put me through financially, if we are being truly "fair" then she should owe me money.

Financially I've come nowhere, and if it weren't for the apartment that I bought appreciating in value, I would have gone backwards financially despite working hard to make payments against my mortgage for the past 5 years.

 

[sammy01]

Yup - he didn't force her to come to Australia...

No way she is entitled to half the increased value of a home that she did not contribute towards. No way... Maybe if kids were involved. But hell no...

If it were me, I would not even respond to any correspondence from her solicitor until there is a court application served on you.