Fear of Relationships over worry about losing everything

it's clearly a very complicated and emotive topic which means that there's no chance of everyone being happy most of the time let alone all the time.

I can honestly say though that using my parents as an example, my dad has been the breadwinner for pretty much the entirety of their marriage, with my mum working for a few years early on. they started with zero assets from dad's side and a small amount from mums.

They've built up a decent pool of assets and there is no way anyone would be able to convince me, or to be fair either of my folks, that mum isn't entitled to at least half. no way whatsoever.

dad would not have been nearly as successful as he is without her support and also if the unthinkable ever happened, as someone who has been actively working/in business for decades he would find it a lot easier to support himself financially than she would have.

I get that there woild be plenty of other cases where perhaps it's felt the stay at home spouse did not contribute to the couples wealth directly or indirectly and may have been a terrible spouse but that just highlights to me the difficulties faced by judges trying to sift through it and be fair to all parties.

I'm sure there could/should be changes made to the current system in some form but the overwhelming attitude by many people (IRL and on PC) about it being all for women and against men and some of the insinuations don't quite sit right with me.

 

As a comparison lets look at the Thai system.

De factos are not recognised at all only married couples.

When you get divorced there any assets you had prior to marriage belong to you. Any assets acquired after marriage are split 50/50.

You might think that fair, but imagine the situation where a bloke already has a house, marries a girl for 20 years, they acquire no further assets and then divorce. She gets half of nothing.

or

Imagine you, a bloke - or a woman for that matter - were in a de facto relationshi for 20 years. You could make no claim, even if you had kids together.

 

What happens if you marry a Ladyboy?..

 

Yeah that wouldn't be great. However, it makes being married more desirable. If he/she doesn't want to get hitched, it would be perfectly valid to move on to the next courter. I must say I find the 2 year de-facto thing here a bit strange. It really puts the pressure on and you may as well be hitched.
Now that marriage equality is becoming maistream, maybe there's a case for lightening up on the defacto situation. Especially for those past the kids stage.

 

Depends if you have children or not.

 

I'm in the rebuilding stage after having to buy out my ex. I was always the primary income earner. I then watched him pour the tens of thousands I handed to him after a property settlement either into the local TAB, local poker machine provider and up his arm. All the reasons we were no longer together in the first place, today he has nothing and is in huge debt.

My family court lawyer gave me some free advice "Met someone, you have your house, he has his house and occasionally you or he might sleep over; but whatever you do don't let him move in".

 

How's this work where a long-term mistress (or master?) is in the picture?

I don't know about other states, but I believe in QLD a mistress entitled to a slice of the pie?

 

Family law is the same around the country. The laws were changed I think around 8 years ago so that you could be in more than one de facto relationship at a time - the so-called 'mistress' amendments.

You still need to fulfill the criteria for de facto relationship - which is tighter than most people realise. Its not simply just living together while in a relationship.

 

Ah the mistress, don't you love them? Well you should love them and leave them because if they meet certain criteria they can also take a large chunk of your estate when you die. If a mistress/materess meets the definition of 'spouse' they could end up sharing your estate 50/50 with your legal wife/husband or de facto partner.

 

What's the requirement? Having a child?

 

No, far from it. For NSW intestacy laws:
104 Spouse
A spouse of an intestate is a person:

(a) who was married to the intestate immediately before the intestate’s death, or
(b) who was a party to a domestic partnership with the intestate immediately before the intestate’s death.
SUCCESSION ACT 2006 - SECT 104 Spouse

Domestic Partnership is defined in the next section:

105 Domestic partnership
A domestic partnership is a relationship between the intestate and another person that is a registered relationship, or interstate registered relationship, within the meaning of the Relationships Register Act 2010 , or a de facto relationship that:

(a) has been in existence for a continuous period of 2 years, or
(b) has resulted in the birth of a child.

SUCCESSION ACT 2006 - SECT 105 Domestic partnership

 

For Family Provision in NSW (a claim you have not be provided for in the will) an 'eligible person' can make a claim and this includes:

(b) a person with whom the deceased person was living in a de facto relationship at the time of the deceased person’s death,

or

(f) a person with whom the deceased person was living in a close personal relationship at the time of the deceased person’s death.

SUCCESSION ACT 2006 - SECT 57 Eligible persons

Close personal relationship is defined at s3:
(3) For the purposes of this Act, a close personal relationship (other than a marriage or a de facto relationship) between two adult persons, whether or not related by family, who are living together, one or each of whom provides the other with domestic support and personal care.

 

The Family Law system does not use fixed formulas or percentages - everyone's case and circumstances are that bit different - but there is an established way of working out the appropriate solution, which the courts have previously laid down, and lawyers use to give advice.

This usually involves a four step process:

Step 1 requires a family balance sheet of all assets and all liabilities. This is prepared regardless of in whose name a particular asset may be, because assets may be in one party's name for any number of reasons. A separate listing is prepared for superannuation, which is treated as a different class of property. The Family Law system requires a full disclosure of each party's financial position, and valuations or appraisals of the worth of various types of properties are usually obtained and exchanged as part of the process.

Step 2 involves an assessment of contributions by or on behalf of a party. These contributions will usually be both financial and non-financial, and so contributions as a parent and homemaker are given a real value. If one looks at a typical Australian family where Dad is the major breadwinner and Mum the major parent and homemaker, in many cases those contributions will be seen as equal. If one party or another has made or received special contributions an adjustment will be made, and typical examples of this are where a party brought a lot more financially into the relationship than the other, where one has been given gifts from parents or has received an inheritance. Step 2 is about the past, and will produce an assessment of the respective contributions as at the time of the assessment.

Step 3 is about the future, and requires a consideration of whether adjustments need to be made to the Step 2 outcome, based on future needs and responsibilities. The most common Step 3 factors are the ongoing care of children, and age, health and earning capacity of the parties. How much allowance is made for parenting responsibilities will depend on the number and age of the children, any special needs and the involvement of the other parent. There are other factors, but those are the common ones.

Once a Step 2 assessment has been made, any adjustments needed for the future by Step 3 are made, and a percentage reached. Step 4 then requires an overall look to see if the outcome is fair and reasonable.

 

This is how you can improve asset protection in Family Law situations:

1. Enter into a Binding Financial Agreement at the start. make sure everything is fully disclosed and proper advice is received.

2. Keep finances totally separate from each other.

3. Keep the other person well away from your property - don't let them make any non financial contributions such as gardening, painting, liaising with the real estate agent

4. Don't have children

5. keep the relationship as short as possible

6. live in rented accommodation

7.don't plan to leave each other anything or to make them a beneficiary of your super or life insurance.

 

I agree with not having children. Or choose the father/mother of your child very carefully.

But then again, if you don't have kids, who will you leave all your accumulated wealth to?

 

Reproducing is the biological purpose of life. So not having kids just to avoid the potential of losing some assets is a big decision to make.

 

This is true and how sad is it that people are choosing Money over everything. To many people are living in fear and this is not called living.

 

I cannot believe some would choose not to have kids to avoid the risk of loosing their material wealth.
Financial wealth is supposed to free us and make our lives more comfortable/more enjoyable, not restrain us.
Perhaps life would be more fulfilling and happier without significant wealth than one may fear loosing.
In the end, when one looks back on their life, work and financial wealth won't mean much IMO.