Pre-nups

Have to agree with @Perp

 

What about creating a discretionary trust where the person with the assets before marriage is the director?

Far from perfect in asset protection but still pretty good and would avoid offending your potential wife/husband by asking them to sign a prenup.

 

That doesn't work to "protect" your assets. Its all on the table or factored into a property order.

 

So much for that idea.

 

That's not always the case some Men these days when the "Wife" can earn good money,stay at home and bring up the kids ,saw so many Men doing the same and doing a very good job, and from what I have seen over the years,the Men that would not put their Ladies on dual titles ,your money yours and mine is mine don't last very long,did not last long..it's not all about money it's called trust..

Plus I have a mate who was living in a caravan park big drinker loved the TAB,worked week by week no kids no stress in his life,he goes in the Brisbane Casino one night about 3 years ago standing at the front bar turns around and spills his drink down the dress of the stunning Asian Lady who was married to a older Man with no kids that died and left 4 house several equities and cash to his wife,one minute your living in a caravan park drinking smoking and eating baked beans, three years later he a property developer,and I'm 100% sure he could put that Lady on the bbq plate real quick,the Lady trusted him and he would have only 20 cents in his back pocket come payday..

 

Any thoughts or suggestions on the different approaches for setting up an agreement.

Starting - record of assets of each party at the start of the agreement.

During - agreeing an approach for contributions to joint household expenses and savings/investments. As well as agreements for keeping certain finances/investments separate.

Finishing - how to untangle finances and assets.

What are fair approaches that would be less likely to cause tension during setup?

 

1. Getting a lawyer to do it. You need certificates of independent legal advice to make it stand up in Court anyway.

I think fair is
1. Each party lists their assets they had before they were together and you keep investment assets separate.
2. Each party takes their assets and any growth etc at the end (if ends)
3. Any investments and the family home accumulated etc during the relationship is split 50:50 if no kids
4. Any investments and the family home etc is split 40:40:20 if there are kids. 40 to each of the partners. Discretionary trust for kids holding 20% to be used for the care and benefit thereof (income from not capital) and capital restricted until kids turn 25.

 

Thanks. That's the the type of response I was looking for. Understand that a lawyer would need to set it up.

Interested in variations on this approach if anyone has actually setup a BFA.

 

Didn't need one my wife and I entered our marriage with same finances. So what we build, is what we build together.

 

Hey I didn't start this thread I was only responding to @Gockie

 

I believe @Perp was the first one to mention it...
I only mentioned that my partner and I have spilt finances - he expressively wrote he has no financial interest in my properties!

 

Google the case Kennon V Spry.

Dr Spry was a barrister and trust expert - he lost.

 

For those of you that think the courts are 'fair' I ask that you watch this video.



Watch this video and you will see first hand why men are increasingly rejecting marriage and fatherhood. The stories expressed in the video are far too common - all over the world. Young men are hearing these stories and asking themselves 'Where is the benefit in getting married?'

To pre-emept the 'Oh this isn't Australia' I ask that you trust me, that the stories outlined happen here in Australia. There are fathers here in Australia, that are in the same position as these men.

How do I know this? Because I've heard first hand and read frighteningly similar stories from men who have not heard or read these stories and are not simply piggy backing on the sympathy train.

Just one thing I want to point out here - Dr. Warren Farrell sat on the board of NOW - the National Organisation of Women in the early 70's - that is, until he was kicked off for daring to consider the plight of men. Nowadays, he is labelled as misogynist and other horrible names for simply speaking out for the plight of men.

Don't believe me? Watch this video.

 

Okay, so what you're saying here is that presumption of innocence and due process should be thrown out because someone said that they found something offensive?

Are you for real?

Why even have a court of law? Why not just regress to a Salem Witch Trial-esque society where a simple accusation is sufficient to find guilt?

 

Hey @Mark Laszczuk,
You don't happen to be Mr Fabulous by any chance?

 

I didnt watch the video because I dont want to chew my data. But I also ask myself where is the benefit in getting married?? Its like that s what society expects you to do get married.
The amount of stories I have heard and the stats saying its a 50 percent divorce rate whats the point!

 

I shed a tear for the first bloke only getting to see his kids 1 hour a week. My eyes soon dried up when he admitted to strangling his ex.