Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Property settlement and prior assets

I have a query in regard to the splitting of assets after separation and how assets held prior to the relationship are viewed.

After several years marriage and a young child now in equal care.

If one party brought in say 100K and the other brought in 400K at the start, how is this considered.

Does it now mean because there is a child involved it is now 50/50 or is it more in parity to what they both started with.

Any rough guide or some direction to the areas I could find out more would be appreciated.

"When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside can not hurt you"

asset split

Domo - would require more info to really help. S.75 factors come in to play; these cover a multitude of sins.

Education, health, furure needs etc



Monti

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
Did you get any advice or what happened with you?

I am in a very similar situation. I brought in $400K  and the ex brought in about 100K. It's a 16 year relationship, one child 15.

Now my properties are worth 5 times the amount and my ex's are worth about three times the amount.

We both worked fulltime.

I paid more during the  relationship as well.

We can both keep working and our child lives with me.

Trial Judge V Magistrate (SRL) - round one to judge

A matter which involves a known Magistrate who has had judgement on her property settlement regarding her use of prior assets is ongoing.

The magistrate has now alleged that a Family Court judge was biased against her. Having heard the matter I can see her perspective. Her choice of counsel was questionable. The Family Law judge had to my mind made a premature moral judgement in respect of a fellow judicial officer.

The sale of a property for less than its value and the transfer of funds to her children were unwise. Yet the presence of bias regardless of who is involved is unwarranted.

I anticipated an appeal after hearing submissions. It will be interesting to follow the machinations as a judge verse judge could be an interesting show.

Judges are deluding themselves if they believe they can be above all things.

The most recent judgement is about: FAMILY LAW COSTS Costs sought by husband claim for additional costs he incurred as a result of late and inadequate disclosure by the wife of dealings with funds in her control application by wife for adjournment of costs pending her appeal in the substantive proceedings, for disqualification of trial judge from hearing the costs claim, and for dismissal of the costs claim applications of wife dismissed fixed amount of costs ordered to be paid by wife payment deferred pending appeal @:

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/eb1c380ba46747a/2009_FamCA_627.pdf

The magistrate is now a SRL which adds to the hues.

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
BusyBee2009 said
Did you get any advice or what happened with you?

I am in a very similar situation. I brought in $400K  and the ex brought in about 100K. It's a 16 year relationship, one child 15.

Now my properties are worth 5 times the amount and my ex's are worth about three times the amount.

We both worked fulltime.

I paid more during the  relationship as well.

We can both keep working and our child lives with me.
I would think after 16 years the break up of assets would be 50/50 if the child has 50/50 time with the Parents.

Considering property splits

GR8M8 said
I would think after 16 years the break up of assets would be 50/50 if the child has 50/50 time with the Parents.
It is true that initial contribution's weight diminishes in time. 16 years is a significant period, although remnant credits may remain.
It is not reasonable to assume that a 50/50 split will occur.

There are many factors which contribute to a fair and just settlement. The homemaker contributions of ahomemaking mother apply more to the cohabitation period unless the children are young. The purposes to which the initial contribution is put and the current value of that asset is considered. Age, capacity to work and health are all considered when assessing future needs.

The future needs of a child of 15 are less burdensome when 75(2) factors are evaluated than very young children. Child Support payments and the constancy of those payments are of consequence. A Spousal Maintenance order is available to a party able to substantiate grounds for such a consideration.

Inheritances, gifts and financial behaviour are amongst the factors considered. The date of receiving inheritances/gifts etc are of importance.Negative contributions (wastage) are also considered. Indirect contributions (effecting house improvements) are also factored in. Superannuation is a generally regarded as a future resource and if necessary it can be split to facilitate a settlement.

Contributions during cohabitation tend to be mutually equitable as a mother at home looking to a child tends to beregarded to be equally pulling her weight in a "joint financial partnership". "Special Contributions" which have resulted in a extra-ordinary contribution to the asset pool are rarely accepted, yet are there to argue.

Assets that have never been integrated into joint resources may be argued as quarantine-able, yet these arealso is affected by time. Assets can be considered on a "Global" (common) or an "Asset by Asset" "(less common) basis.

An opinion from a Family Law Specialist might be of value in determining what position is worth basing your position. Such consultations can come at a reduced cost and might at times come freely if your a likely client.

It is important to present as factual (not emotional) as is possible the current circumstances and some chronological account of financial events. As can be appreciated there are multiple inputs that have to be balanced (if possible) by a court. A preference by the court and rational partiesfor consent orders sees many matters resolved before trial.

Few cases are identical so to conclude that a 50/50 split is the outcome is premature.

Getting a reliable opinion allows a basis to pursue a negotiated outcome which diminishes the extent of leakage to the legal industry.

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
Initial advice was the other party would get substantially less than 50%, as the initial contributions would still carry weight and the size of the property pool is considered high.

Both parties worked and will continue to do so.

The child will stay with one party (their choice).
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets