ATO abetting abusers to make women homeless

Often legislation is introduced to protect the interests of the powerful and the wealthy, there are implications that deliberately impact negatively on those who are not "in the club". I'll bet this legislation was formulated by an abuser.
Women beware of the abusive "set up" whereby an accountant or an intending abuser suggests that your name not be on the title deed to a property. The idea is that the spouse on the higher/ male wage can claim negative gearing - sounds innocent? Here is the real intent: abuse and when you leave you will find you have no claim on the property! You are obligated to the mortgage debt but you have no say whatsoever over the sale, disposal, estate inheritance or any other interest in your home. Result? You have a considerable debt, your credit rating is at the mercy of the abuser and you and your children are now homeless! Did you use your own property that you owned 100% outright as collateral on what was intended to be a joint property? Consider it now gone - all to the abuser. Sell your property? The bank (in this case ING - may they rot in hell too) will gift all (yes all of the proceeds) to your abuser. The accountant? Well he's probably sitting at home, warm, cosy and smug - maybe the abuser gave him a bottle of wine? You and the kids? Well you obviously weren't in the power club...let's hope as an older Australian facing life on the streets through no fault of your own that the strain wasn't so much you did anything drastic... Women we need to take on this legislation and get this revoked this is putting who knows how many women through undeserved hell. If I hear a male suggesting this again - I will know they are intending fraud and abuse - leave them.

 

This can happen to men as well.

 

It sounds like maybe you had a bad experience, and if so, I'm sorry to hear that. But frankly pretty much everything you're saying is a load of bull. I don't even know what "legislation" you're referring to.

 

Just this morning I advised a person with a penis (someone vaginally challenged) about the benefits of having a property with wife solely on title. Of course I advised him of the legal consequences - wife could deal with the property without his knowledge, leave it to someone else on death, lose it via bankruptcy.

In this case the wife is 'in the club'.

 

What if a female accountant/lawyer suggests it? All hunky dory then with snaps all round?

 

exactly. even with my extended family last year i recommended an uncle have only my aunt on the title and not him.

i had no idea i was not only the nephew of an abuser but that i secretly was an accessory to abuse too.

do i need a lawyer?

 

What 'legislation' are you referring to?

From the sounds of it the word you're looking for is 'strategy', as in the strategy of holding an asset in one person's name to achieve the most favorable tax outcome.

With regards to the rest of your post: my understanding was that family law courts looks at the wealth of both individuals when dividing assets upon divorce. It's entirely possible that you would be partially entitled to assets which are not held in your name but you have contributed to purchasing and/or paying for (e.g the family home held only by 1 person in a relationship).

There are plenty of people out there who put investments solely in the names of their non-working spouse (it may shock you that this is also not always a woman).

 

Yes this is basically correct, s79 Family Law Act 1979

 

@Solo Forever - interesting first post.

Doesn't that only apply if you have kids? Can't go to the Family Court unless you are a 'family', not a couple.

...& then runs of with your ex?

 

While this sounds like you've been burned and I truly sympathise with that, to take this kind of stand as a first post on a property forum is not helping anyone.

People do this all the time for a variety of different reasons as it is within the law; and considering a law has to be vetted by a number of different people and organisations, you've basically called everyone who has had anything to do with the formulation, structuring and application of the law an accessory to a level of domestic violence.

That's the bit where Steve Price calls you "hysterical" and all debate is shut down because there is no response from either party to restart a conversation and keep the community talking and recognising problems..

 

Our PPOR is 99/1....my wife is the 99.

Me; self abuser.

Wait...that didn't come out right.

 

very interesting first post - don't feed the troll.

 

Not at all.
Family Law act covers marriages and defactos whether same sex or opposite and whether kids exist or not.

 

My friend @Terry_w in the legal profession is right and so are the other comments. @thatbum was succinct with the "load of bull" comment.

The Family Law Act is a commonwealth legislation that has these things covered. A caveat can be placed pursuant to constructive trust doctrine/equitable interests to prevent any dealing.

I have no properties under my name at all, only in wife's.

The OP either wrongly perceived the application of laws or received wrong advice. I'm more than happy to check the legislation OP referred to as well as the bill, first and second readings etc.

 

Length of marriage, financial and non financial contributions to the marriage as well as other considerations.

 

@Terry_w - thanks for setting me straight

 

My wife and I bought a property. At the time I was the primary carer of our children (and continued to be so for another couple of years). The house was purchased in her name, mortgage is also in her name.
I'm back at work full time now. I almost earn half her salary, so not much point changing the financial structure.

My sympathies to the OP - abuse is abhorrent, but even in a separation that does not involve abuse, you would hope that calm heads prevail - especially when children are involved.

Cheers,
Inertia.

 

I think women need to empower themselves so they dont become "victims", perceived or otherwise.

Educate yourself, become self sufficient, dont enter into agreements you arent comfortable with, regardless of your gender.

 

And what does the ATO have to do with all this? (in the heading)

 

Some banks will allow a spouse or partner to be on a mortgage when they are not on the title. That makes the spouse or partner responsible for the debt but with no control over the asset. It's risky for the spouse or partner to enter into this kind of arrangement and the outcome could conceivably as per the OPs post. Some women are not informed of the financial and legal implications of this type of structure. Not sure if the legislation is at fault here. Perhaps we need to teach everyone to be more financially savvy so they can understand what they are signing.