pre nups or binding financial agreements

s 79 family law act.

 

I'm curious, would you be able to give some hypothetical scenarios?

E.g. "love made me blind to the mooching" vs. "he / she wanted to focus on painting / life ambition / hobbies" vs. "couldn't hold down a job for more than 2 mins before getting fired" etc.

 

Which is really fine for the lawyer coz even if they are negligent good luck on finding one of their own to take them thru the system, it's a " boys club" bit like the pollies and their travel perks neither party are going to push too hard cos they all rort the system.

 

So the rule of "I have lived with you for this long so I can start taking stuff off you" is it 2 years,6 months, ten years?? This is with no kids.

 

There is no hard and fast rule by the sounds of it. It seems to be at the discretion of a judge, unless it's agreed by the couple before it hits family court.

 

Not so. Lawyers are sued every day of the week. If a lawyer is sued they cannot defend themselves either as the insurer will take over and litigate or settle on the behalf of the lawyer. I can cite cases such as Gadens Lawyers Sydney Pty Ltd v Symond [2015] NSWCA 50
Aussie John sued his lawyers over tax advice
Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Stojcevski [2014] NSWSC 1718 .
husband alleged solicitor breached retainer and was negligent in failing to
require him to obtain separate legal advice and failing to explain
transaction documents to him

 

I know people who are earning a lot and their partners mooch off them big time. Shopping etc. Love can make people blind

 

Look at s 79(4) = sub section 4 of
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s79.html

 

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s79.html on this server.


Almost all your links are like this. Can you cut and paste the snippet?

 

Shows up fine for me.

Here is ss 4
(4) In considering what order (if any) should be made under this section in property settlement proceedings, the court shall take into account:

(a) the financial contribution made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last-mentioned property, whether or not that last-mentioned property has, since the making of the contribution, ceased to be the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them; and

(b) the contribution (other than a financial contribution) made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last-mentioned property, whether or not that last-mentioned property has, since the making of the contribution, ceased to be the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them; and

(c) the contribution made by a party to the marriage to the welfare of the family constituted by the parties to the marriage and any children of the marriage, including any contribution made in the capacity of homemaker or parent; and

(d) the effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party to the marriage; and

(e) the matters referred to in subsection 75(2) so far as they are relevant; and

(f) any other order made under this Act affecting a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage; and

(g) any child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 that a party to the marriage has provided, is to provide, or might be liable to provide in the future, for a child of the marriage.

 

I loved this article when it came up in my news feed! http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/24/judge-ex-wife-millionaire-work