Why Does an Ex-Wife/Husband Get Superannuation after Divorce?

AussieDolphin on 11/09/2016 - 12:10

Our property settlement of last week didn't work out for many reasons. My ex-husband has refused to release a portion of his superannuation to mine. His argument is that due to property prices dropping I would incur a debt for our house to be sold to get my name off everything to do with it. He also won't part with superannuation because he doesn't see how it will benefit the children and myself when I can't even touch it for a few more decades. Apart form splitting it being part of the Family Law Act I don't really know what to say? He has transferred assets and money to I family member so I can't get this as I have no proof. I think superannuation is important as it I was in and out of the work force raising children so he could do what he does and earns so much for it.

Any family lawyers that could help with this issue, please?

Financial

Comments

  • Settero on 11/09/2016 - 12:29
    +6

    you are probably talking about a not so insignificant amount of money , go to a lawyer , a real one , not a self announced one of a forum.

    • AussieDolphin on 11/09/2016 - 12:58

      I think you assumed incorrectly. I have a lawyer but I cannot afford to pay her to represent me in court. $25,000 in superannuation is a significant amount of money in my opinion.

      • StewBalls on 11/09/2016 - 17:42
        +1

        Welcome to Family Law, no pay, no play. The only winners in this game are in fact the lawyers…

        Of course, you could try a local Family Dispute Resolution centre first, but human nature being what it is these things more often than not end up in court, so Settero is right, you usually cannot avoid using a lawyer.

        The sad news is that if you pair can't work it out amicably, your $25k super will seem like chump-change in comparison to the costs of a drawn out family court battle…

  • Kangal on 11/09/2016 - 12:31
    +3

    Not sure if there's many lawyers here, nonetheless family lawyers.

    But you are correct.
    You do deserve a portion of his superannuation contributions he added during the period of your marriage.
    Sometimes this can be unfair for the husband, other times unfair for the wife.
    But you do have to realise that you did sacrifice your time/effort as a housewife.
    You did make contributions to his life, therefore, his work life.
    Go back and explain this to him.

    If not, a lawyer can explain it better in front of a judge, and they can take it from his funds without his permission.

    At the end of the day, you won't be "ripped off" but explain to him that going that route would mean lawyers and judges and settlements…
    …and all of that will cost money from his current savings!
    So he should consider his options very carefully.
    Best of luck.

    • AussieDolphin on 11/09/2016 - 13:01

      About the savings part - he maintains he is as poor as a Church mouse. Added to this he recently bought another property so the current property we own jointly has to be sold now.

      • chumlee on 11/09/2016 - 14:20
        +2

        He can cry poor if he likes that's why you need legal representation even if it's community legal centre for free legal advice. Your lawyer needs to persuade a judge in the federal circuit court that your ex can earn more and has hidden assets etc.

  • chumlee on 11/09/2016 - 12:34
    +3

    As above. Talk to a lawyer. Slater and Gordon have a fixed fee for family law so start there if you are worried about costs of litigation. Remember, your ex husband has to pay child support on his earning potential not his current income so getting good legal representation is important.

  • dp1 on 11/09/2016 - 12:40
    +2

    Not a lawyer, but agree as above. If he made regular contributions to your super account during the marriage he might have a case but otherwise the courts wouldn't agree with him.
    There is always an auditable trail with transfer of assets and money unless it's a suitcase of used banknotes. He would have to prove your consent to transfer assets which are considered joint property.
    You really have no option but to get a lawyer if he is not prepared to be honest about finances. Everyone I know who thought they could settle matters amicably wishes they had got a lawyer years earlier

    • AussieDolphin on 11/09/2016 - 13:04

      He made no contributions to my superannuation at any time, just his own. Now though it is deemed part of property assets and besides subpoenaing all banks in Australia and overseas to prove his assets I don't think there is another way to prove that he isn't struggling. Actually, he signed statutory declarations to say that none of what I said he has exists.

  • MercSal on 11/09/2016 - 14:13
    +4

    You absolutely need to use a lawyer. Discovery of assets is fairly standard in acrimonious divorce cases, and is not something that can be done by lay-people.

  • Afternoon Delight on 11/09/2016 - 18:51
    +5

    Not a lawyer, my partner is in the sector and says… If you're a low income card holder (pension, disability etc.) contact your local Legal Aid Commission. Failing that you can get free legal advice from your local Community Legal Centre or Womens Legal Centre. You can also get free legal advice over the phone, this is different in each state. Google is your friend here. These are your best starting point(s), not some internet forum. Support your Communtiy Legal Centres people!

  • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2016 - 19:06
    +2

    Just get a pair of bikies

  • ozshaz on 12/09/2016 - 14:06
    +1

    I have seen similar case in my friend circle recently. Same situation and the husband didn't wanted to split the super and transfer the house (children matter). Went to court and the ruling was that he had to split the super and transfer the house to wife's name (after asset split). Normally the reason for super split is because the time husband went to work and accumulated the super you were taking care of household and therefore couldn't accumulate the super. However this is only valid if you were staying at home or working part time due to household duties. So the court agrees that if you would have worked full time then you would have got more super and therefore gives you the benefit.

    I hope this makes sense.

    However as everyone mentioned above take an advise of a lawyer in case of doubt.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join