Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Could wife seek financial gain from new consent order

Add Topic
I have an existing consent order between my ex wife and I from 2006 and will be seeking to change the component relating to care of my children, but not those components of the order relating to property and asset division. Can the ex wife now seek to take a portion of my superannuation even thought we agreed in the existing order not to touch each others super or other property? We have been divorced since mid 2007.

Thanks for any opinions.
Do you mean you have a court stamped order by consent or simply an agreement where you have both consented and signed ?

If you are addressing this matter through necessity due to the divorce and you have no current orders stamped by the court then anything is possible.
  
simitar said
I have an existing consent order between my ex wife and I from 2006 and will be seeking to change the component relating to care of my children, but not those components of the order relating to property and asset division. Can the ex wife now seek to take a portion of my superannuation even thought we agreed in the existing order not to touch each others super or other property? We have been divorced since mid 2007.

Thanks for any opinions.

Simitar

Your ex wife would have to provide the Court with an extremely valid reason(s) to re open the property iusse. The same as you will to re open the care issue.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
The re-opening of one, does not mean automatic re-opening of the other.

I think this may be what Imadad was getting at.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Artemis is correct. If you re-open the parenting issue you open that issue alone. To re-open property one party needs to show cause under s79A of the Act. That section is a bit like the Rice and Asplund of Property Orders, only much more strictly applied. Very few s 79A Applications are successful.
The most extreme example of property issues I have seen (I have raised this before but cannot remember the case id) is how a woman and man married for 5 years in their later years - say 60 and 65.

Five years after separation the man inherits money from an aunt (?).

The judge awards the woman (who applied many years after) on the basis that when they were together she had an expectation that he would inherit from his not yet dead relative. The fact that she died and he inherited after the separation event was deemed irrelevant

Go GIRLS GO!

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets