Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

The four steps to determine a property application

How the courts divide your money, assets and home

The approach taken in a s.79 application, is the so called four step process. The four steps are:

Identify and value the net property of the parties(Asset Pool), and following.

Property includes assets such as cars, boats, shares, business, savings, super,family home, investment property, paintings, coin collection, furniture and bank savings.

Consider the contributions of the parties within paras (a) to (c ) of s.79(4) and following.

The court now considers direct and indirect  financial contributions to the property. It also considers contributions made to the welfare of the family, such as a home maker or parent. For example if your partner looked after the children while you built up a business, your partner would receive a share of the business, as they enabled you to work, while they looked after the children. Even if there are no children involved and your partner looked after the house as a home maker, they would receive a share of the said business.

Consider the s.75(2) factors s.79(4) (d) to (g) and following.

After taking in account the contributions of both parties, the court will apply scetion 79(4) (d) to (g) of the Act. This covers the effect of any orders made on future earning capacity of either party. Child support payments, now or in the future. Section 75 (2) matters are taken in to account.


Consider wherever the order proposed is just and equitable (s.79(2)

Spousal maintenance S.72 is considered to be the fifth step in this process. It is not pleasant; it is draconian.

See postings about s.79, s.72 and s.75.

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. 
I cannot understand how spousal maintenance is still on the books.

People do not marry or defacto so they can support someone for the rest of their lives - even after they have run off with the milkman and taken all their children and assets in court.

I thought women's groups would have tried to get this removed years ago - it's denigrating to women to think they cannot support themselves after a marriage breakdown.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Spam advertising removed by moderator
Here's what one reviewer of 'A BooHoo's Guide' said
This was an 'interesting' (cough cough) read.

I think this 'gentleman' has too much time on his hands, and 'thinks' he knows more than he actually does. I found plenty of holes in the 'advice' he gives… I could rip lots of his arguments apart… but he probably wouldn't listen anyway.

I doubt his success rate… I certainly wouldn't employ his services or advice.

He could be classified as (what he calls them) boohoo men.

I think he either needs to start getting his facts right about some things, or find something else to occupy his time.

Wouldn't bother telling any members about him… they could end up in a worse situation!
Better to read and learn from real stories about Family Law

Real stories about Family Law
I see the moderators have removed yet another post about the very badly written and incomprehensible 'Blokes Guide' advertised by the idiot that has the Australian record of being banned by the most forums

I have a copy - its a complete waste of money - he should be paying people to read it instead of trying to rip off people at a very vulnerable stage in their lives - he is worse than a lawyer

Anyone want a free pdf copy please email me at

ozziebarbarian@yahoo.com.au

Warning, its a boring read, reading the local telephone directory would be more interesting and useful



Conan

I like your style - you are not an ex Londoner by any chance?

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. 

High Court quote

From:
http://www.familycourt...a7316/2007_FamCA_1316.pdf

In a recent Full Court judgement the following excerpt is interesting:

"We are conscious however, of the observation of the High Court in Neil v Nott (1994) 121 ALR 148; (1994) 68 ALJR 509 where their Honours said at ALR 150; ALJR 510:


"A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden of endeavouring to ascertain the rights of parties which are obfuscated by their own advocacy."

Last edit: by verdad


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
At the hearing of the appeal the husband, who had already filed one written "summary of argument handed up a document headed "The Appellant's Submissions of Appeal". It runs into 32 pages plus annexures and asserts, in a rambling way, a series of areas where the trial judge made errors

We think the most disciplined way to attack this appeal is to make our own analysis of the judgment and identify areas where it could properly be argued that the trial judge fell into error."

Methinks this unfortunate SRL was "aided" by the Hogan person.

First lesson is keep to KISS, as in W & C [2002] FMCAfam 166 (17 May 2002) beat both the CSA and Slater & Gordon
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets