Australia Law
Have Australian law questions? Ask a lawyer now.
Connect one-on-one with {0} who will answer your question
Answered in 34 minutes by:
4/24/2013
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedUnfortunately, where one party signs an agreement and the other party, before signing alters or amends any information annexed to the agreement, even it does not change the botXXXXX XXXXXne, it then becomes uncertain whether the agreement is then binding.
This means in your case that whilst it is arguable that you have already both agreed because the settlement itself is not altered by a change in the asset schedule, if there is any reason why the change would have altered the parties position (i.e. because he would not have accepted the current arrangement if the amended superannuation figures had been previously disclosed to him), then a court might conclude the agreement was not concluded and hold it unenforceable. The duty of full and frank disclosure is quite strict so an agreement will not generally be held as enforceable if important information did not come to light until after it was signed.
I would suggest that you proceed as if it is binding, and if he accepts your payout under that agreement then over time it would become more and more difficult for him to challenge the validity of the agreement.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so that I can be paid for my time and effort.
Please note that I am only paid out of the previously deposited funds if you score me with 3 or more smileys/stars.
Thank you,
Patrick
Yes, rental figures probably should, but at the end of the day, it is the botXXXXX XXXXXne of the agreement that is important, what you have agreed to pay in full settlement. If this figure is acceptable to you then the fact that some funds, such as rent were not properly disclosed by him does not mean you should not sign off on the agreement, or that it won't be enforceable.
Where a party fails to properly disclose assets or income this will only be grounds for the other side to set aside an agreement. He cannot resile from the settlement just because he himself has failed to disclose anything.
If the only non disclosure was by him and the only amendment you made was to correct this then the agreement should be binding.
Please rate my answer so that I can be paid for my time and effort.
Please note that I am only paid out of the previously deposited funds if you score me with 3 or more smileys/stars.
Thank you,
Patrick
Where a party fails to properly disclose assets or income this will only be grounds for the other side to set aside an agreement. He cannot resile from the settlement just because he himself has failed to disclose anything.
If the only non disclosure was by him and the only amendment you made was to correct this then the agreement should be binding.
Please rate my answer so that I can be paid for my time and effort.
Please note that I am only paid out of the previously deposited funds if you score me with 3 or more smileys/stars.
Thank you,
Patrick
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
The fact that the price a property sells for is somewhat different from the amount set out in the form does not invalidate the form. Valuations are, by their nature, estimates and often vary from market reality. The important thing is whether the estimates were reasonably and honestly formulated, not whether they are confirmed by subsequent sales.
I trust this assists.
I trust this assists.
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
Then you have the same option's I said earlier, you can try to enforce the original agreement with the minor modifications or simply apply to the court to impose its own property apportionment (as if you were unable to reach agreement with your ex at all).
As to maintenance, generally it is only ordered nowadays if there are insufficient assets available in the marital asset pool to satisfy a fair division, as courts try to finalise the financial entanglement of parties as much as is possible so maintenance is not the preferred solution. From what you describe there are considerable assets in the pool, however, so it would be more likely that the approach a court would take is to adjust the asset pool somewhat in your favour to reflect any health issues which may impact on your ability to support yourself. Such issues were presumably taken into account in your settlement agreement (if they were previously raised). You are not however, automatically entitled to more simply because he earns more than you, there must be a real reason why you need extra support, such as health issues or similar.
You are not entitled to make a claim against his de facto's assets and whether she works or not is largely irrelevant unless it can be demonstrated that she is unable to work and this is a real and involuntary expense for him. Similarly, if you cannot work, that is a matter the court could take into account, but if you simply decided not to the court will not take that into account in assessing a fair division.
I trust this assists your understanding.
Patrick
As to maintenance, generally it is only ordered nowadays if there are insufficient assets available in the marital asset pool to satisfy a fair division, as courts try to finalise the financial entanglement of parties as much as is possible so maintenance is not the preferred solution. From what you describe there are considerable assets in the pool, however, so it would be more likely that the approach a court would take is to adjust the asset pool somewhat in your favour to reflect any health issues which may impact on your ability to support yourself. Such issues were presumably taken into account in your settlement agreement (if they were previously raised). You are not however, automatically entitled to more simply because he earns more than you, there must be a real reason why you need extra support, such as health issues or similar.
You are not entitled to make a claim against his de facto's assets and whether she works or not is largely irrelevant unless it can be demonstrated that she is unable to work and this is a real and involuntary expense for him. Similarly, if you cannot work, that is a matter the court could take into account, but if you simply decided not to the court will not take that into account in assessing a fair division.
I trust this assists your understanding.
Patrick
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
If twelve thousand or so in undeclared superannuation were a major percentage of the marital asset pool then it should be raised but if you almost have an agreement in place and it represents only a very small percentage it probably isn't worth the trouble to argue over in court, or the legal costs of thoroughly investigating it. Though it might be worth mentioning it in passing in the course of negotiations since it indicates the sort of expensive litigation that may result if an agreement cannot be reached.
If he sells a property then in principle the A&L schedule should be amended to reflect the changes to the asset and liability column, the asset column having reference to the property in question removed and the cash remaining (after tax) added, and the liabilities column should have any debt paid off by the sale proceeds removed as a liability. The net effect should not change much however, so the sale itself should not ordinarily hurt your position, since the net assets available for apportionment won't change greatly.
As you said, the court is not interested in the 'background information' of this sort Although this may seem unfair, this is the system in Australia and it was adopted largely because arguments about why a marriage failed are rarely satisfied by simply looking at who cheated on who, as there are usually underlying problems which contribute to the infidelity and it is actually quite rare that a picture emerges where one party is clearly and solely at fault. The conclusion was therefore that, for the most part in failed relationships, both parties had, in some way, failed to live up to the expectations of the other party and that attempting to assign fault was usually a pointless exercise, that in most cases simply resulted in very expensive trials that ultimately achieved almost nothing, except the deepening of animosity between the parties. On that basis, back in the early 1970s Australia adopted no fault divorce which allows courts and the parties to focus on a satisfactory apportionment of property, rather than retributive and spiteful blame arguments. As expensive as litigation still is, it is MUCH cheaper than it was under the previous divorce regime.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
If he sells a property then in principle the A&L schedule should be amended to reflect the changes to the asset and liability column, the asset column having reference to the property in question removed and the cash remaining (after tax) added, and the liabilities column should have any debt paid off by the sale proceeds removed as a liability. The net effect should not change much however, so the sale itself should not ordinarily hurt your position, since the net assets available for apportionment won't change greatly.
As you said, the court is not interested in the 'background information' of this sort Although this may seem unfair, this is the system in Australia and it was adopted largely because arguments about why a marriage failed are rarely satisfied by simply looking at who cheated on who, as there are usually underlying problems which contribute to the infidelity and it is actually quite rare that a picture emerges where one party is clearly and solely at fault. The conclusion was therefore that, for the most part in failed relationships, both parties had, in some way, failed to live up to the expectations of the other party and that attempting to assign fault was usually a pointless exercise, that in most cases simply resulted in very expensive trials that ultimately achieved almost nothing, except the deepening of animosity between the parties. On that basis, back in the early 1970s Australia adopted no fault divorce which allows courts and the parties to focus on a satisfactory apportionment of property, rather than retributive and spiteful blame arguments. As expensive as litigation still is, it is MUCH cheaper than it was under the previous divorce regime.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
A court simply hears both parties versions of who paid for what and how and the forms a view based on this and on other evidence, such as bank accounts.
Also, a court looks at the overall picture which usually gives a clearer since of who contributed what. Income records of both parties over time, the assets they brought into the arrangement and then comparing these with what is left is a much simpler and effective way of working out roughly who contributed what financially, and generally courts are not terribly interested in the funding history of each separate asset, any more than they are interested in whose name ended up on the title deeds. On top of all that the court will form a view as to what types of non financial contributions are made (i.e. looking after children, or each other during times of sickness, unpaid work done in support of the others employment or business, etc). Also, even if all the funds for certain assets can be traced to one parties financial contributions, the court will often infer that very likely the other party contributed more in less traceable expenses, such as everyday groceries etc.
For the above reasons, it is unlikely that his evidence that he contributed the funds for all the assets will greatly assist your ex in convincing a court that he was the sole contributor to the overall asset pool, and I think you more concerned about this than you need to be.
Finally, any verbal agreements you had about how assets were to be paid and investment income applied to each of your accounts will almost certainly be treated as irrelevant since such agreements rarely are treated as legal contracts, rather they are normally assumed to be mere agreements as to how to arrange your financial affairs, rather than binding commitments as to who was entitled to what. The court will largely be disinterested in such 'agreements'.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Also, a court looks at the overall picture which usually gives a clearer since of who contributed what. Income records of both parties over time, the assets they brought into the arrangement and then comparing these with what is left is a much simpler and effective way of working out roughly who contributed what financially, and generally courts are not terribly interested in the funding history of each separate asset, any more than they are interested in whose name ended up on the title deeds. On top of all that the court will form a view as to what types of non financial contributions are made (i.e. looking after children, or each other during times of sickness, unpaid work done in support of the others employment or business, etc). Also, even if all the funds for certain assets can be traced to one parties financial contributions, the court will often infer that very likely the other party contributed more in less traceable expenses, such as everyday groceries etc.
For the above reasons, it is unlikely that his evidence that he contributed the funds for all the assets will greatly assist your ex in convincing a court that he was the sole contributor to the overall asset pool, and I think you more concerned about this than you need to be.
Finally, any verbal agreements you had about how assets were to be paid and investment income applied to each of your accounts will almost certainly be treated as irrelevant since such agreements rarely are treated as legal contracts, rather they are normally assumed to be mere agreements as to how to arrange your financial affairs, rather than binding commitments as to who was entitled to what. The court will largely be disinterested in such 'agreements'.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
The divorce itself is a separate issue from the property dispute and although property disputes usually follow divorce, they are not technically related and you can proceed with the divorce without it affecting your rights to obtain property orders. The only issue to be aware of is that once you are divorced you generally only have 12 months to make an application for orders regarding property, but as the process is underway to resolve your property claim and you have a lawyer acting for you that should not be an issue in your case.
This means that there is no legal reason to try to stop the divorce itself, and although I cannot tell why the divorce hearing has been relisted (you will need to check with your lawyer about this, or the court itself) likely there is a very simple reason.
Moreover, obtaining a divorce is generally uncontroversial and there virtually no grounds on which to argue against the divorce as the only issue is whether the relationship has irretrievably broken down which the court will accept if one party believes this to be the case, or if the parties have not yet been separated for 12 months as required by the Family Law Act. This means that divorces are almost always granted even when one party objects.
The fact there has been some delay in granting the divorce orders likely, therefore, relates to some minor technical problem with the application or an affidavits, which can usually be easily remedied but sometimes require an adjournment.
If your husband ticked a box which reflected the state of affairs when he ticked it, but not the current state of affairs, by all means this could be brought to the court's attention, but as the property matters are not really relevant to the divorce proceedings, a court is unlikely to stop the divorce proceedings simply because other proceedings or negotiations are currently underway regarding the property.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so that I can be paid for my time and effort.
Please note that I am only paid out of the previously deposited funds if you score me with 3 or more smileys/stars.
Thank you,
Patrick
This means that there is no legal reason to try to stop the divorce itself, and although I cannot tell why the divorce hearing has been relisted (you will need to check with your lawyer about this, or the court itself) likely there is a very simple reason.
Moreover, obtaining a divorce is generally uncontroversial and there virtually no grounds on which to argue against the divorce as the only issue is whether the relationship has irretrievably broken down which the court will accept if one party believes this to be the case, or if the parties have not yet been separated for 12 months as required by the Family Law Act. This means that divorces are almost always granted even when one party objects.
The fact there has been some delay in granting the divorce orders likely, therefore, relates to some minor technical problem with the application or an affidavits, which can usually be easily remedied but sometimes require an adjournment.
If your husband ticked a box which reflected the state of affairs when he ticked it, but not the current state of affairs, by all means this could be brought to the court's attention, but as the property matters are not really relevant to the divorce proceedings, a court is unlikely to stop the divorce proceedings simply because other proceedings or negotiations are currently underway regarding the property.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so that I can be paid for my time and effort.
Please note that I am only paid out of the previously deposited funds if you score me with 3 or more smileys/stars.
Thank you,
Patrick
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
If he is selling property which is mortgaged then he cannot distribute the proceeds without the approval of the bank, but subject to getting the banks approval, he use the proceeds as he chooses.
Generally though the bank would require the mortgage to be paid off, or refinanced and only the remainder would then be available for redistribution.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so that I can be paid for my time and effort.
Please note that I am only paid out of the previously deposited funds if you score me with 3 or more smileys/stars.
Thank you,
Patrick
Generally though the bank would require the mortgage to be paid off, or refinanced and only the remainder would then be available for redistribution.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so that I can be paid for my time and effort.
Please note that I am only paid out of the previously deposited funds if you score me with 3 or more smileys/stars.
Thank you,
Patrick
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
Hello again.
Until there is a an actual agreement or court determination in place, raising new issues about certain assets, what they are worth and whether they are pre or post cohabitation is simply a matter for evidence (if the matter is to be determined by a court) or for taking into account when negotiating a final settlement (if you are to settle outside of court).
So until the matter is finally put to bed there is nothing that prevents either of you from continuing to raise further issues or adjusting your position to reflect any new information. Naturally, constantly adding new information makes it difficult to finalise your negotiations, so if you cannot get him to stop raising new issues then by all means refer the matter to the court. At least the court will draw the line on new evidence and/or impose cost orders where new evidence is raised late in proceedings, but if you really want to settle you just have to be patient and deal with any new information or allegations raised by your ex as they arise.
As explained in some of my previous answers, issues like your lack of payment whilst working in his business generally come out in the wash and rather than working out what you ought to have been paid in wages, the court is simply likely to treat this as one of your many contributions to the relationship asset pool. So whilst it needs to be raised as a factor, the court will not be interested in analysing in great detail exactly the hours you worked and what exactly you should be credited for that work, rather the court will simply note that you made substantial contributions to that asset, and keep that in mind when working out a final division percentage.
Until the matter finally resolves it won't be clear at all that you have been ripped off. Where you think a proposed settlement is completely unfair, stand your ground and either negotiate for a better deal or let the court decide the matter. There are no laws which oblige you to settle the matter on terms you think are unfair.
That said, the general view amongst lawyers is that when reaching a division of assets such as this, a fair settlement will usually occur when neither of the parties is entirely happy with the arrangement as invariably the parties to such a dispute perceive they should receive more than an independent third party is likely to impose, so be aware that it is unrealistic to expect that you will get everything you think would be fair.
No doubt your lawyer is best placed to advise you whether your ex's position and changes indicate you should abandon negotiations, so I would recommend you follow his/her advice unless you have clear reasons not to.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so that I can be paid for my time and effort.
Please note that I am only paid out of the previously deposited funds if you score me with 3 or more smileys/stars.
Thank you,
Patrick
Until there is a an actual agreement or court determination in place, raising new issues about certain assets, what they are worth and whether they are pre or post cohabitation is simply a matter for evidence (if the matter is to be determined by a court) or for taking into account when negotiating a final settlement (if you are to settle outside of court).
So until the matter is finally put to bed there is nothing that prevents either of you from continuing to raise further issues or adjusting your position to reflect any new information. Naturally, constantly adding new information makes it difficult to finalise your negotiations, so if you cannot get him to stop raising new issues then by all means refer the matter to the court. At least the court will draw the line on new evidence and/or impose cost orders where new evidence is raised late in proceedings, but if you really want to settle you just have to be patient and deal with any new information or allegations raised by your ex as they arise.
As explained in some of my previous answers, issues like your lack of payment whilst working in his business generally come out in the wash and rather than working out what you ought to have been paid in wages, the court is simply likely to treat this as one of your many contributions to the relationship asset pool. So whilst it needs to be raised as a factor, the court will not be interested in analysing in great detail exactly the hours you worked and what exactly you should be credited for that work, rather the court will simply note that you made substantial contributions to that asset, and keep that in mind when working out a final division percentage.
Until the matter finally resolves it won't be clear at all that you have been ripped off. Where you think a proposed settlement is completely unfair, stand your ground and either negotiate for a better deal or let the court decide the matter. There are no laws which oblige you to settle the matter on terms you think are unfair.
That said, the general view amongst lawyers is that when reaching a division of assets such as this, a fair settlement will usually occur when neither of the parties is entirely happy with the arrangement as invariably the parties to such a dispute perceive they should receive more than an independent third party is likely to impose, so be aware that it is unrealistic to expect that you will get everything you think would be fair.
No doubt your lawyer is best placed to advise you whether your ex's position and changes indicate you should abandon negotiations, so I would recommend you follow his/her advice unless you have clear reasons not to.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so that I can be paid for my time and effort.
Please note that I am only paid out of the previously deposited funds if you score me with 3 or more smileys/stars.
Thank you,
Patrick
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
Hello again,
If the property sold three weeks ago, that does not mean all the money has been paid. Generally after the auction or sale contract is entered, the purchaser only pays a deposit and it is only on settlement that the bulk of the funds are paid. This likely explains why money has not been put into any interest bearing account. You should ask for an explanation as to what has been done with the funds and by whom, but it would likely be unreasonable to demand an accountant provide a statement (since an accountant was likely not involved in the transaction) and it is only if there is something clearly suspicious about the transaction that a detailed explanation should b sought.
If the property in question has sold for an amount higher than that disclosed by your ex, then he should be confronted about this and this should be taken into account when considering any offer or making any counter offer. Whilst his apparently being misleading in this regard is reason to treat what he says cautiously, it does not of itself mean you should not continue to try to negotiate a final settlement. His treatening legal action if his latest offer is not accepted should not be given much weight. No doubt he is trying to pressure you, but the best course is likely to ignore this if you are not happy with the proposed settlement terms unless your lawyer advises that the offer is reasonable.
Whether he decides to live up north or not is really a matter for him. If he decides on a course that will significantly affect his income earning potential, and he is relying on this to justfiy a settlement more favourable to him, it may be worth exploring whether he is just trying to manufacture circumstances to favour him, but generally these matters he is entitled to decide for himself and should have no or little bearing on your legal issues with him.
As to the de facto's assets, your ex won't have any significant claim to those unit they have been in a de facto relationship for some time and even then it will generally only be to the extent that reflects his direct and indirect contributions to that relationship. The only extent to which such assets could be relevant to your settlement is if you can show that your ex has been financially contributing to them (i.e. such as where he is using his income to pay her mortgage, etc, since it would appear he is in effect diminishing his assets to avoid your claim. Absent such considerations, you cannot bring any claim against her assets.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so I can be paid by the website operator.
Please note I am only paid if you rate me with three or more stars/smileys.
Thank you and good luck.
Patrick
If the property sold three weeks ago, that does not mean all the money has been paid. Generally after the auction or sale contract is entered, the purchaser only pays a deposit and it is only on settlement that the bulk of the funds are paid. This likely explains why money has not been put into any interest bearing account. You should ask for an explanation as to what has been done with the funds and by whom, but it would likely be unreasonable to demand an accountant provide a statement (since an accountant was likely not involved in the transaction) and it is only if there is something clearly suspicious about the transaction that a detailed explanation should b sought.
If the property in question has sold for an amount higher than that disclosed by your ex, then he should be confronted about this and this should be taken into account when considering any offer or making any counter offer. Whilst his apparently being misleading in this regard is reason to treat what he says cautiously, it does not of itself mean you should not continue to try to negotiate a final settlement. His treatening legal action if his latest offer is not accepted should not be given much weight. No doubt he is trying to pressure you, but the best course is likely to ignore this if you are not happy with the proposed settlement terms unless your lawyer advises that the offer is reasonable.
Whether he decides to live up north or not is really a matter for him. If he decides on a course that will significantly affect his income earning potential, and he is relying on this to justfiy a settlement more favourable to him, it may be worth exploring whether he is just trying to manufacture circumstances to favour him, but generally these matters he is entitled to decide for himself and should have no or little bearing on your legal issues with him.
As to the de facto's assets, your ex won't have any significant claim to those unit they have been in a de facto relationship for some time and even then it will generally only be to the extent that reflects his direct and indirect contributions to that relationship. The only extent to which such assets could be relevant to your settlement is if you can show that your ex has been financially contributing to them (i.e. such as where he is using his income to pay her mortgage, etc, since it would appear he is in effect diminishing his assets to avoid your claim. Absent such considerations, you cannot bring any claim against her assets.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so I can be paid by the website operator.
Please note I am only paid if you rate me with three or more stars/smileys.
Thank you and good luck.
Patrick
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
Absent a court order there is no law that compells him to be consistent in his dealings with the bank, but if is causing you considerable grief you could apply to the court for orders addressing matters like this.
His behaviour whilst not unlawful, is something a court may take into account going forward and it will not reflect well on him, but absent a court order that pay consistently, it is only the bank that can legally complain.
Please rate my answer so that I can be paid by the website operator for my time.
Please note I am only paid if you rate me with three or more stars/smileys.
Thank you and good luck.
His behaviour whilst not unlawful, is something a court may take into account going forward and it will not reflect well on him, but absent a court order that pay consistently, it is only the bank that can legally complain.
Please rate my answer so that I can be paid by the website operator for my time.
Please note I am only paid if you rate me with three or more stars/smileys.
Thank you and good luck.
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
Hello again,
There's not much you can do about your ex changing his mind about settlement numbers, but to some extent your lawyer can raise with the court that at various times your ex has put forward different figures and failed to mention certain properties at times, and this may lead the court to forming an unfavourable view of your ex. The court however, won't punish your ex explicitly for this, but a negative impression may indirectly lead to a better outcome for you.
As to why the court requires you to provide information that is current, it is because under the Family Law Act the asset pool available for distribution is based on the combined assets that each of you own as at the date of the court deciding the matter, not as at the date of separation. Whilst the court will note any wasteful or self serving disposal of assets between the court date and the date of separation, the court does need to know the financial situation when it makes its final decision, and not simply what was at the time of separation. This is because the court cannot make a distribution of assets that do not exist and if there is a considerable gap between separation and the court determining the issue often the asset pool can change quite a bit.
Each party being entitled to each other's super may well cancel out, so saying that each party can claim on each other's super may, in effect may be no different than saying that neither can claim on each other's super. However, in some cases it will make a difference and the law requires that in all cases it be disclosed so that the court can at least consider whether any adjustments to superannuation are appropriate. Super is often one of the last assets that the court's redistribute and so it is often the case that no redistribution of super is made unless no other assets are available for a party to contribute to the other's apportionment.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so I can be paid by the website operator.
Please note I am only paid if you rate me with three or more stars/smileys.
Thank you and good luck.
Patrick
There's not much you can do about your ex changing his mind about settlement numbers, but to some extent your lawyer can raise with the court that at various times your ex has put forward different figures and failed to mention certain properties at times, and this may lead the court to forming an unfavourable view of your ex. The court however, won't punish your ex explicitly for this, but a negative impression may indirectly lead to a better outcome for you.
As to why the court requires you to provide information that is current, it is because under the Family Law Act the asset pool available for distribution is based on the combined assets that each of you own as at the date of the court deciding the matter, not as at the date of separation. Whilst the court will note any wasteful or self serving disposal of assets between the court date and the date of separation, the court does need to know the financial situation when it makes its final decision, and not simply what was at the time of separation. This is because the court cannot make a distribution of assets that do not exist and if there is a considerable gap between separation and the court determining the issue often the asset pool can change quite a bit.
Each party being entitled to each other's super may well cancel out, so saying that each party can claim on each other's super may, in effect may be no different than saying that neither can claim on each other's super. However, in some cases it will make a difference and the law requires that in all cases it be disclosed so that the court can at least consider whether any adjustments to superannuation are appropriate. Super is often one of the last assets that the court's redistribute and so it is often the case that no redistribution of super is made unless no other assets are available for a party to contribute to the other's apportionment.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so I can be paid by the website operator.
Please note I am only paid if you rate me with three or more stars/smileys.
Thank you and good luck.
Patrick
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
To the extent that his income is relevant to your property settlement the court usually considers the earing potential of a party who has just lost their job and doesn't just assume they will earn nothing going forward.
That said, the mining industry has slowed down so likely his earning capacity will be lower than it was a year or so ago.
Primarily though, property settlement target the assets of the relationship so the court would usually aim to divide the property in a way that leaves each party independent of the other's income, so provided there are sufficient assets to make a proper division, his lack of income may not have any bearing on the settlement and will be his problem alone.
Any shortfalls in mortgage payments on any of the assets will be sorted out when the property is divided, and if he hasn't been making mortgage repayments then he won't get any credit for contributing to the property (to the extent he hasn't paid).
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so I can be paid by the website operator.
Please note I am only paid if you rate me with three or more stars/smileys.
Thank you and good luck.
Patrick
That said, the mining industry has slowed down so likely his earning capacity will be lower than it was a year or so ago.
Primarily though, property settlement target the assets of the relationship so the court would usually aim to divide the property in a way that leaves each party independent of the other's income, so provided there are sufficient assets to make a proper division, his lack of income may not have any bearing on the settlement and will be his problem alone.
Any shortfalls in mortgage payments on any of the assets will be sorted out when the property is divided, and if he hasn't been making mortgage repayments then he won't get any credit for contributing to the property (to the extent he hasn't paid).
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so I can be paid by the website operator.
Please note I am only paid if you rate me with three or more stars/smileys.
Thank you and good luck.
Patrick
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
If it has only been a few days I don't think you should draw any negative conclusions. Although your anxiety is completely understandable in the circumstances, it is not unusual in my experience for lawyers to be unavailable for a few days at a time. If you have only tried emailing them, try calling and at least getting some indication from a secretary as to when the lawyer can get back to you.
As to why your husband's lawyers have said they need further documents but have not yet identified them, that is really something that is up to them. They may have changed their mind, they may still be trying to work out what they need to ask for. If they fail to ask in a timely fashion the court may be disinclined to let them delay the hearing, so chasing them up over this does not appear to be in your interest.
I also think it would be counter-productive for you to be making demands separately from your lawyer to access your ex's documents. It will just inform your ex's lawyers that you are not in synch with your lawyer and may encourage them to try to use that to their advantage. For this reason I would not recommend you pursue such a course which is now really a matter for your lawyer to attend to. Of course you should continue to conference with your lawyer about any documents you are concerned have not been produced but you need to work with your lawyer not independently.
As to why so few documents have been produced so far, there are many reasons not every document in the FA's records would be produced. Many likely have no real relevance. Even in discovery lists, the obligation is simply to disclose relevant documents, not every record remotely connected to the parties, and subpoenas themselves have to limit themselves to relevant material, so it is entirely normal for there to be less than a full record collected for court proceedings.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so I can be paid by the website operator.
Please note I am only paid if you rate me with three or more stars/smileys.
Thank you and good luck.
Patrick
As to why your husband's lawyers have said they need further documents but have not yet identified them, that is really something that is up to them. They may have changed their mind, they may still be trying to work out what they need to ask for. If they fail to ask in a timely fashion the court may be disinclined to let them delay the hearing, so chasing them up over this does not appear to be in your interest.
I also think it would be counter-productive for you to be making demands separately from your lawyer to access your ex's documents. It will just inform your ex's lawyers that you are not in synch with your lawyer and may encourage them to try to use that to their advantage. For this reason I would not recommend you pursue such a course which is now really a matter for your lawyer to attend to. Of course you should continue to conference with your lawyer about any documents you are concerned have not been produced but you need to work with your lawyer not independently.
As to why so few documents have been produced so far, there are many reasons not every document in the FA's records would be produced. Many likely have no real relevance. Even in discovery lists, the obligation is simply to disclose relevant documents, not every record remotely connected to the parties, and subpoenas themselves have to limit themselves to relevant material, so it is entirely normal for there to be less than a full record collected for court proceedings.
I trust the above assists your understanding.
Please rate my answer so I can be paid by the website operator.
Please note I am only paid if you rate me with three or more stars/smileys.
Thank you and good luck.
Patrick
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
Hello again,
Unfortunately, you really are in the hands of market forces when it comes to the rates lawyers charge. If you are unhappy with the amount they are charging your only options are to try to negotiate them down, or to find an alternate lawyer.
It is an unfortunate reality that when a lawyer, or any other contracted worker, is required to work on short notice many of them will charge considerably higher fees than they might otherwise, and the only way to overcome this is to find other lawyers willing to take the case for less.
All I can suggest is that you look for alternatives and/or discuss your issue with both the stand in lawyer and your original lawyer to see if some alternate more cost effective arrangement can be achieved.
I wish I could give you a more helpful response but your situation is a common one and is essentially just a fact of the legal market.
Good luck and I hope your hearing goes well.
If you have any further questions, I would suggest you post them on the general board as I will be away on holidays from tomorrow and may not be back online for a week or so.
Good luck.
Unfortunately, you really are in the hands of market forces when it comes to the rates lawyers charge. If you are unhappy with the amount they are charging your only options are to try to negotiate them down, or to find an alternate lawyer.
It is an unfortunate reality that when a lawyer, or any other contracted worker, is required to work on short notice many of them will charge considerably higher fees than they might otherwise, and the only way to overcome this is to find other lawyers willing to take the case for less.
All I can suggest is that you look for alternatives and/or discuss your issue with both the stand in lawyer and your original lawyer to see if some alternate more cost effective arrangement can be achieved.
I wish I could give you a more helpful response but your situation is a common one and is essentially just a fact of the legal market.
Good luck and I hope your hearing goes well.
If you have any further questions, I would suggest you post them on the general board as I will be away on holidays from tomorrow and may not be back online for a week or so.
Good luck.
Patrick H., Lawyer
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 5,422
Experience: Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
VerifiedPatrick H. and 87 other Australia Law Specialists are ready to help you
How JustAnswer works
Describe your issueThe assistant will guide you
Chat 1:1 with a solicitorLicensed Experts are available 24/7
100% satisfaction guaranteeGet all the answers you need
Related Australia Law Questions
I have just received a letter saying my ex would like over
I have just received a letter saying my ex would like over 50% of my super after being together for 20 years. … read more
Leon
Solicitor
Master's Degree
32,717 satisfied customers
I was in a defacto relationship in Western Australia for 4
I was in a defacto relationship in Western Australia for 4 yrs 10 months, We own a house together, but I paid for the house and the renovations, on the property, this was paid out of my settlement mon… read more
John Melis
Lawyer
Bachelor's Degree
18,693 satisfied customers
I would like to no if I have a reasonable chance to re-open
I would like to no if I have a reasonable chance to re-open property settlement post divorce … read more
Patrick H.
Lawyer
5,422 satisfied customers
I bought a house 11 years ago. 12 months later my ex partner
I bought a house 11 years ago. 12 months later my ex partner moved in. 6 months later we decided to put the mortgage in both names, which also put the title in both names. Then 12 months ago my ex mov… read more
Leon
Solicitor
Master's Degree
32,717 satisfied customers
To Do wit Property settlement (finalising Divorce) Ex (he
To Do wit Property settlement (finalising Divorce) Ex (he instigated the divorce) has been uncompliant for the past 2 and a half years refusing to disclose information and un proactive towards achievi… read more
Leon
Solicitor
Master's Degree
32,717 satisfied customers
I have separated from my partner of 18 years. We have already
I have separated from my partner of 18 years. We have already sold our house and went 50/50 is remaining proceeds, after our mortgage was paid out. We are just trying to sort out the split of our rema… read more
Leon
Solicitor
Master's Degree
32,717 satisfied customers
How long after receiving an Affidavit and Financial statement
How long after receiving an Affidavit and Financial statement do I have to put in a new one to Court if I disagree and have some evidence against my ex's responses. (I have already put the initial pap… read more
Leon
Solicitor
Master's Degree
32,717 satisfied customers
Have finally received (after 8 months of asking) Insurance
Have finally received (after 8 months of asking) Insurance papers for a rental property my ex husband and I own. Problem: this property is in the pool for property division and my ex husband is to ret… read more
Patrick H.
Lawyer
5,422 satisfied customers
My sister and her defacto partner have separated after 13 years.
My sister and her defacto partner have separated after 13 years. They live in WA. He has a house worth approx $700K and Superannuation of $9.5M. My sister has superannuation of $350K and no other asse… read more
Brisbane-Lawyer
Lawyer & Solicitor
Master
14,357 satisfied customers
My partner and I are separating and are planning to seel out
My partner and I are separating and are planning to seel out home and do a 50/50 split of the net value. However there is one bone of contention. prior to commencing a defacto relationship, my partner… read more
Patrick H.
Lawyer
5,422 satisfied customers
If two people are living together and both parties work full
If two people who have been living defacto buy a home but solely in the females parties name on mortgage and title but have been renting in a apartment for over a year, both parties work full time but… read more
Deborah Awyzio
Solicitor
Bachelor's Degree
863 satisfied customers
My Ex Husband gave false information on his financial statment.Also
My Ex Husband gave false information on his financial statment.Also presented false figures about the profitability of a joint owned company. The result was I paid him out $475,000 for a company whos … read more
Advocate
Master's Degree
350 satisfied customers
Hi my name is Therese and I am after some Australian Family
Hi my name is XXXXX XXXXX I am after some Australian Family Law advice. To begin with I suffer from a mental illness and have for 6 years. My ex husband and I divorced last year. At first I employed a… read more
Brisbane-Lawyer
Lawyer & Solicitor
Master
14,357 satisfied customers
My partner recently broke up with me, we were recognized by
My partner recently broke up with me, we were recognized by the Australian defence force as a defacto couple since January 27th 2005, am I entitled to half his superannuation as people keep telling me… read more
Leon
Solicitor
Master's Degree
32,717 satisfied customers
Defacto property settlement (NSW) - I was in a 6 year defacto
Defacto property settlement (NSW) - I was in a 6 year defacto relationship which ended almost 11 months ago. In 2007 we purchased a house value $385k in my name only, mortgage in my name. We borrowed … read more
Deborah Awyzio
Solicitor
Bachelor's Degree
863 satisfied customers
Hi, I was in a 4yr relationship that ended. Not married or
Hi, I was in a 4yr relationship that ended. Not married or had children.We lived together for 6months renting under a lease. Basically my ex is trying to blackmail/ threaten me saying that i should le… read more
Deborah Awyzio
Solicitor
Bachelor's Degree
863 satisfied customers
My son and his defacto partner have split and have more debt
My son and his defacto partner have split and have more debt than assets. Does the debt get split 50/50 the same as any assets. They have been living together in QLD since 06/06/2006 and there are no … read more
Leon
Solicitor
Master's Degree
32,717 satisfied customers
My defacto partner and I separated in Dec 08. I was my understanding
My defacto partner and I separated in Dec 08. I was my understanding that we had a verbal agreement on the distribution of our assets. My ex has now advised that he would like a separation agreement s… read more
Deborah Awyzio
Solicitor
Bachelor's Degree
863 satisfied customers
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).
JustAnswer in the News:
Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... Justanswer.com.
JustAnswer.com...has seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like justanswer.com/legal
...leave nothing to chance.
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.
What Customers are Saying:
Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises!
Edmond, OK
My Expert was fast and seemed to have the answer to my taser question at the tips of her fingers. Communication was excellent. I left feeling confident in her answer.
Redwood City, CA
I am very pleased with JustAnswer as a place to go for divorce or criminal law knowledge and insight.
Wichita, KS
PaulMJD helped me with questions I had regarding an urgent legal matter. His answers were excellent.
Houston, TX
Anne was extremely helpful. Her information put me in the right direction for action that kept me legal, possible saving me a ton of money in the future. Thank you again, Anne!!
Atlanta, GA
It worked great. I had the facts and I presented them to my ex-landlord and she folded and returned my deposit. The 50 bucks I spent with you solved my problem.
Apopka, FL
Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help.
Freshfield, Liverpool, UK
< Previous | Next >
Meet the Experts:
Deborah Awyzio
Solicitor
863 satisfied customers
Bachelor of Laws (QUT), BIT (QUT), Family Law Accredited Specialist, over 12 years experience
Sean
Experienced lawyer
855 satisfied customers
Law degree with 1st class honours from Australian National University.
Darren Kruse
Solicitor
16 satisfied customers
Practising in in Personal Injury, Workcover, Civil Disputes, Family, Wills and Estates and Criminal law.
Leon
Solicitor
32,717 satisfied customers
BEc Dip Ed, Dip Law (SAB) MTax (UNSW)
John Melis
Lawyer
18,693 satisfied customers
Family Law, Commercial Law, Property law, Probate & Wills, Employment Law, International Law, Criminal and Traffic Law, Litigation Tribunal & Courts
Daniel
Solicitor
7,501 satisfied customers
Bachelor of Laws (dist) Graduate Diploma in Legal Practise. Admitted NSW Supreme Court / High Court
Patrick H.
Lawyer
5,422 satisfied customers
Dip Law LPAB - Sydney based lawyer
< Previous | Next >
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).
