I Bought a Apartment by Myself. What Is My Girlfriend Entitled to IF We Break up?

Lbigbunj92 on 30/08/2023 - 16:20
Last edited 31/08/2023 - 13:00

Edit: Thanks all, really value all your input (and horror stories / regrets lol). I'll take all this info on board and consult with my family's lawyer accordingly!

I can’t seem to get a straight answer anywhere else online, so naturally, I’ve come to OzB

I’m in the fortunate position where I’ve been able to buy an apartment as a PPoR. I’m also in a de facto relationship with my girlfriend. We’ve been together for less than two years, and have been living together for 1 year (both on the lease). The intent would be that we both live together in this new PPoR. I bought the apartment using my funds only, and it’s only my name on the offer sheet and the contract.

We don’t have joint bank accounts. Up until this point, we have split the cost or take turns sharing the cost of the things we both reasonably consume together (i.e., lunches, bills, groceries). If we want/need to buy something for just ourselves (i.e., clothes, car insurance, petrol, social sports, etc.), we do that with our own money from our own accounts.

[I realise lots of couples have shared bank accounts and do the whole ‘shared account, plus two person accounts’ thing, but we’re not at that stage in our relationship yet. Or at least I’m not ready for that yet lol. One day I’m sure I will be, and perhaps that will dramatically change the scenario I’m describing and i'll seek advice accordingly.]

My intent for now was to just charge my partner “rent” of sorts to help contribute to the mortgage repayments of the PPoR for us both – I’d be happy to do this formally or informally. Consensus online seems to be that you charge half the marketplace rent for the same type of living situation you could find on the open market, which is basically in-line with what my intent was in the first place. Say, $180 a week to live in a 3bed 2bath apartment with me. I figured this would be a reasonable thing to do and would also help her to continue to build her own nest-egg for her to do whatever she wants with in the future – either with or without me.

The part where I’m worried is based on a work colleagues’ story. He reckons he has a “buddy” who was in the same position as me, and lost half his house when he broke up with his girlfriend even though she didn’t contribute to the cost of buying the house. This has naturally got me a bit freaked out, despite my best efforts to ignore stories about “buddies of mine” lol.

Can someone point me to the answers on this, or provide some advice?

Financial

Comments

    • jv on 30/08/2023 - 16:27
      +107

      if you knock her up, she's gonna grab half…

      don't need kids for that…

      if deemed a de facto, can still make a claim.

      • HeWhoKnows on 31/08/2023 - 13:29
        -1

        Relationship of less than 2 years (Only 1 year actualy) , NIL contribution to the property and you both basically pay for your own suggests little if any claim.

        • jv on 31/08/2023 - 13:30
          +10

          It's at the discretion of the court.

          • HeWhoKnows on 31/08/2023 - 13:31
            -8

            @jv: No, incorrect
            Its in the LAW!

            • jv on 31/08/2023 - 13:31
              +18

              @HeWhoKnows: The court determines if the relationship is de facto or not.

              • payless69 on 01/09/2023 - 20:33
                -1

                @jv: Female judge who ripped a few men off might side with your ex!!!

      • MrKnowItAll on 01/09/2023 - 10:34
        +2

        I want to like this, but it's currently at 69 (nice) and I don't want to be the one to ruin that. So, I will give you my + through a comment haha

  • jv on 30/08/2023 - 16:26
    +86

    Just break up now, before it's too late…

    A de facto relationship is when two people are not married but live together, or have lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. A family law court can make decisions if there is no agreement.

    https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/de-facto-relationships

    the court must be satisfied that:
    the couple were in a de facto relationship for at least two years or a child is born of their de facto relationship

    • dcep on 30/08/2023 - 17:00
      +6

      Just break up now …

      OP still got 11 months or so left

      • jv on 30/08/2023 - 17:18
        +34

        11 months or so left

        Then time to upgrade…

      • foxmulder on 30/08/2023 - 19:00

        23 months you mean? :)

        • Chandler on 01/09/2023 - 09:44
          +3

          I'd say their time living together in the rental will be counted towards the two years, so <12 months as dcep stated.

      • Chandler on 01/09/2023 - 09:44
        +3

        Or <9 months, if they've been busy breaking in the new home…

    • JimmyF on 30/08/2023 - 19:12
      +3

      Just break up now, before it's too late…

      Just provide the list before its too late….Oh wait already too late.

    • mehow on 31/08/2023 - 10:01
      +8

      Its worse than that… You don't have to live together these days to considered de facto
      https://www.landers.com.au/legal-insights-news/de-facto-rela…

      Together - but living apart
      It is important to note that whether the couple lived together is only one factor that the Court must consider in determining whether a de facto relationship existed.

      Couples should keep in mind that they do not necessarily have to have been living together on a full time basis (or even a half time basis) for the Court to consider them as being in a de facto relationship. The Court need only consider whether the couple lived together as one of many factors that indicate the existence of a de facto relationship.

      • jv on 31/08/2023 - 10:03
        +6

        Its worse than that… You don't have to live together these days to considered de facto

        Can you be de facto, living away, and celibate ?

    • HeWhoKnows on 31/08/2023 - 13:32

      must be for more than 2 years
      OP has only lived with partner for 12 months
      And zero contribution
      BANG!

      • jv on 31/08/2023 - 13:33
        +2

        must be for more than 2 years

        not necessarily…

        https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/de-facto-relationships

        • HeWhoKnows on 31/08/2023 - 13:34
          +4

          Case law my friend.
          A couple lived together for over 20 years (no kids) but each kept their finances completely separate
          No dependence or non-financial contribution either way
          Court ruled neither could make a claim

          • jv on 31/08/2023 - 13:39

            @HeWhoKnows:

            A de facto relationship is when two people are not married but live together, or have lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. A family law court can make decisions if there is no agreement.

          • jv on 31/08/2023 - 13:39
            +1

            @HeWhoKnows:

            Court ruled neither could make a claim

            You just proved my point.

          • [Deactivated] on 01/09/2023 - 09:45
            +2

            @HeWhoKnows: That wasn't a couple. Roomies, maybe

    • Thaal Sinestro on 01/09/2023 - 05:33
      +14

      De Facto laws anger me so much. They are rigged in favour of women. Marriage is pointless. Co-habitate for 2 years and you will lose half of your assets.

      Marriage should be required in order to make an asset claim.

      • SlickMick on 01/09/2023 - 08:26

        Back in the day you made a commitment before you moved in. Works fine when you play by the play book.

        • Harold Halfprice on 02/09/2023 - 12:12
          +7

          Back in the day the man would also be expected to take responsibility of providing for the woman.

          Things change. Men and women are both expected to be able to provide for themselves now - and people move in together to gauge compatibility and share living costs.

      • gugs on 01/09/2023 - 13:16
        +9

        Why are you assuming the man is the one with the money?
        Defacto favours both partners. Huh?

        • wmxc on 03/09/2023 - 20:10
          +6

          In most cases it is the man with the money. Yes, women absolutely have the potential to earn way more than men. But more often than not it is the male earning more.

          Also, I know this is going to be controversial - women more often than not end up marrying upwards. yes again its not all women. but most cases. Hence, the proportion of cases where divorce favours women (when no child is involved) is higher. I believe thats what the person you replied to should have said.

          • OzBarAnon on 05/09/2023 - 15:33
            +1

            @wmxc: I wouldn't say "end up" marrying upwards, but "want to" marry upwards. Generally speaking, men don't seem to care too much about how much their other half makes, whereas that's more of a driving factor for women. Obviously there are exceptions, but that is what I have observed.

      • cadwalader on 03/09/2023 - 14:17
        +4

        It doesn't favor women. It favors those with assets. You can go be with a wealthier woman for 5 years and then make a claim on their assets if you like.

      • Belts on 04/09/2023 - 16:49
        +1

        Not true. It favours the primary earner and skews the split towards them.

      • iCandy on 06/09/2023 - 08:27

        Of every woman I know who is divorced, we all (including myself) were ripped off by our ex husbands. Men are just as money hungry and mean as women. Even the ones you think are so nice and would never do the wrong thing.

        • bigsaver on 06/09/2023 - 08:34

          Interesting…of all the couples I know not even 5% of them would have the woman as the wealthier..

          If there are no self steem issues women rarely marry down..they have no mercy, so would never carry the loser on their back…

          Where are all these women you know? I might look there so at least I don't get ripped off in the future again

    • payless69 on 01/09/2023 - 20:33

      Buy Kevin B Willson's FFF song!!

    • ozbjunkie on 31/08/2023 - 08:12
      +11

      If by "you can say" you mean make misleading statements to the courts, I'd advise against that.

      So easy to prove that's a lie. Unless you text your partner like your flatmate, or you are on VERY good terms with your flatmate :)

  • jugsy on 30/08/2023 - 16:27
    +36

    I don't know for certain, but I've heard in this day and age Defacto may as well be considered married.

    Have the conversation with her.

  • djsweet on 30/08/2023 - 16:29
    +13

    I'd say your friend's "buddies" are on to something.

  • Duckie2hh on 30/08/2023 - 16:31
    +1

    PRENUP

    • pharkurnell on 30/08/2023 - 16:48
      +33

      not worth the paper its written on…

      • tsk2 on 30/08/2023 - 19:33
        +3

        There is apparently the Australian equivalent and can actually hold some weight. Was listening to a finance podcast and they referenced it.

        Found it: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3Mud2hvb3Noa2F…

      • Benoffie on 30/08/2023 - 23:44
        +17

        BFAs - Binding Financial Agreements. 100% enforceable in Australia.

        • Tleyx on 31/08/2023 - 11:11
          +6

          Not always

        • bogan on 31/08/2023 - 12:53

          As per Tleyx's comment, look up Thorne vs Kennedy

          • Benoffie on 31/08/2023 - 16:37
            +1

            @bogan: Basically, there cannot be any undue influence, unconscionable conduct or 'bad bargains'. Unless the OP has a similar situation here (where there is a visa at stake, little to no English and a paltry $18m difference in equity), I would suggest most people entering into a de facto relationship where they have their own bank accounts and paying their own way, with their own jobs (so, presumably, both Australian citizens) would tick all the boxes.

            Ofc, they should seek their own legal advice. Because this ain't it ;)

            • bogan on 31/08/2023 - 21:02

              @Benoffie: I agree with everything you've written. My point wasn't that Thorne vs Kennedy is an useful example for the OP (it's not, it's extreme), but that the existence of that outcome means that a BFA technically isn't 100% enforceable if it can be vulnerable to challenge.

    • bdl on 30/08/2023 - 17:05
      +12

      BFA

      • Mikeer on 30/08/2023 - 22:40
        +5

        Dragonflight was better

        • Chandler on 01/09/2023 - 10:04
          +2

          WotLK was best

    • Nugs on 30/08/2023 - 18:27
      +4

      As suggested by kanye
      https://youtu.be/lOxb_SW4Cfg?t=121
      .

    • omgilia on 31/08/2023 - 20:11
      +1

      My brothers and sisters if anyone is reading this I'm going through a nasty divorce with a child involved so OP and everyone reading this it is worth looking into one or seek professional advice from a family lawyer.

      Also watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5z8-9Op2nM&t=3042s
      To OP: 27:34 in the video but watch the whole thing

      Otherwise you'll end up like me fighting against a spiteful STBX.
      As a man in this country the laws ain't exactly stacked in your favour especially with people that act in bad faith so in life we really do feel the brunt when choosing the wrong partner.

      • lancesta on 31/08/2023 - 21:55

        This is very US specific. In Australia as far as my entirely uneducated (in the legal sense particularly) understanding is defacto relationships are almost treated the same as marriage. So for a lot of people.the legal liability as far as I understand doesn't change a huge deal when you do sign those papers. It's not like anyone actually enforces the in sickness and health thing/the adultery thing, actually as far as I know it's totally legal so it's almost purely symbolic.

  • PissLUR on 30/08/2023 - 16:31
    +20

    It would really depends on her hunger level when the time comes.

    • mehow on 31/08/2023 - 10:03
      +1

      not to mention the legal bills to test that hunger

  • jumpypotato53 on 30/08/2023 - 16:32
    +21

    You need to discuss this with a lawyer. Can you prove that you had this money before you started this relationship?

    • bigbunj92 on 30/08/2023 - 16:45
      +2

      Yeah, I can. I have the bank records that state where all my money came from over the past decade that contributed to this

      • botchie on 31/08/2023 - 11:51
        +9

        she can always claim she supported you in other way, paid for food, etc, your best bet it so rent out the place and keep renting with her.
        Or go to lawyer and draw up agreement she needs to sign, she might walk after that and you saved yourself a ton.

    • 2esc on 31/08/2023 - 22:11

      Ideally and fairly it should be 50/50 of the wealth you as a couple create/save while together. But in reality part of the money you had before the relationship is at risk.

      • cordsplace on 01/09/2023 - 18:36

        I think your comment is the closest to the mark of all the interesting ones I have read!! If OP has accumulated wealth while in the relationship it will be argued that his partner has contributed towards it. It probably won't be 50% given the short time together but I'm sure the partner could argue a case for some funds.My wife of over 20 years moved in to my home about 4 years before we were married. We both signed pre nups at the time. She also owned a house and had other assets. Pre nups are handy. I accept the argument that they can be challenged but they are handy to have. Now it's not an issue. I have made a lot from my businesses since we married. I've no doubt my wife has contributed to that but she still has property and assets. The OP should seek legal advice if he is concerned and also talk to his partner. When relationships are great, everything is great, when they are not, that is another story. Invest in advice. I'm not sure this thread will give you the answers you are looking for though it's good for unsolicited humour.

  • franco cozzo on 30/08/2023 - 16:33
    +17

    3 words….cover your arse!

    • pformag on 31/08/2023 - 10:13
      +12

      butt plug?

      • Kurutta on 31/08/2023 - 13:26
        +2

        I dunno, I think pants will do the trick. But if the gf sues his pants off then i guess he'll have to settle for a butt plug.

        • RSmith on 31/08/2023 - 23:25
          +1

          There is another layer of protection called underwear before the final layer called butt plug.

    • ram4ram on 04/09/2023 - 08:46

      CYA?

      But people are suggesting BFA. Whatever that is.

  • djkelly69 on 30/08/2023 - 16:37
    +7

    Only a court could decide these issues, but basically if the court finds you are/were in a defacto relationship, then either party can seek a property settlement. Contrary to some popular beliefs, there is no automatic entitlement to X% of anything (although my limited understanding is that courts often come up with percentages in the 40-60% range after weighing up the relevant factors).

    Defacto relationship

    Gateway issues

    Four step process

    • Worf on 30/08/2023 - 17:13
      +13

      This doesn’t seem fair, hook up with someone and then take half their assets.

      “For the purposes of the Family Law, the meaning of de facto relationship is a close personal relationship between two adults, who are living together, one or each of whom gives domestic support and personal care to the other and of course, that are not legally married”

      What’s the definition of domestic support and personal care? If the couple are both able bodied people who are independent in their activities of daily living, could one argue that domestic support and personal care was not provided, and consequently, the definition of de facto relationship was not meant?

      Consent is required for marriage (and the associated legal implications).

      I don’t think it’s fair that the transition from g/f b/f to de facto occurs by default after a simple passage of time and without explicit consent… fair enough if people get pregnant, but that isn’t OP’s current situation.

      Interested to hear the rebuttal to my view

      • try2bhelpful on 30/08/2023 - 17:28
        +15

        Good luck trying to untangle a relationship that has lasted for several years. Unless you intend to create a ledger where who paid for what is entered for every expense the household has encountered. Do we then include an entry for who us doing the housework and cooking? I think you have a pretty narrow view on what personal care and domestic support means.

        What do you think a continued de facto relationship is apart from consent? You think someone is being held against their will for decades? The man and I have been living de facto for over 40 years. We can’t be arsed getting married because we are committed to each other every day rather than a piece of paper. Trying to untangle our finances, based on who contributed what, would be a nightmare.

        People need to be honest with their partners up front. If you don’t think the relationship is about sharing then say so. Then the other person can make up their mind whether to hang around or not.

        • Worf on 30/08/2023 - 18:17
          +5

          Thanks. My view on personal care and domestic support is based on existing frameworks such as my aged care and NDIS. I’m not suggesting I am right, which is why I sought clarification for the definitions of same. One could argue that your view of personal care and domestic support is too broad.

          I’m suggesting a romantic relationship and a de facto relationship are two separate things. Obviously, the former being a prerequisite for the latter.

          My issue is that the potential transition into a de facto relationship can occur too quickly, without explicit consent, and disadvantage one party disproportionately. E.g., if it took 10 years of work and savings to buy a property, only for half of assets to be taken by someone else after a couple short years.

          I agree that if it becomes unreasonable to untangle apportionment of costs/expenses, then some percentage split might be more practicable. Or if there was a long and continuous bond (such as your decades) then the pub test would likely suggest that for all intents and purposes you may as well be married / de facto.

          But there are lots of people who separate after two years and divide assets / joint purchases fairly. But there is the potential for disproportionate disadvantage.

          • try2bhelpful on 30/08/2023 - 20:50

            @Worf: That is the point. What is the intention of the relationship and the understanding both parties have.

        • lancesta on 31/08/2023 - 21:59

          Tbh I agree, and this works early on in life and some people later on in life but I guess it's more about someone coming in with a lot of money and someone with none.

          Weddings imo are a piece of paper. Things should be shared (chores, bills etc) imo but I guess it's all about finding someone on the same page as you, or at least finding someone you get along with.

          • try2bhelpful on 02/09/2023 - 07:56
            +2

            @lancesta: It is about open communications and understanding that money is only part of the equation. People don’t look at what both parties are hoping to achieve and what each are contributing. What are the attractive qualities you are looking for and what are deal breakers? Money certainly enters into it. Do we really think the trophy wives for many of the rich guys would be interested in them if they didn’t have money? If you demand a certain level of attractiveness then you have to have something to trade for it.

            Look below the surface for what you really want to achieve. The pretty one in the corner taking the selfies and instagramming every minute of the day is likely to be high maintenance. The more frumpy woman sitting close by who has a career and knows how to fix a tap might be a more considered choice if you are looking long term. People need to learn to listen as well as look.

      • CyberMurning on 30/08/2023 - 17:31
        +2

        fair enough if people get pregnant, but that isn’t OP’s current situation.

        so the summary for OP is always use a good protection

        • try2bhelpful on 30/08/2023 - 17:32
          -1

          There is always a vasectomy.

      • trapper on 30/08/2023 - 18:45
        +3

        I don’t think it’s fair that the transition from g/f b/f to de facto occurs by default after a simple passage of time and without explicit consent…

        Yes it's not fair at all.

        That's why OP needs to be careful here to protect his asset.

      • akashra on 31/08/2023 - 18:25

        This doesn’t seem fair, hook up with someone and then take half their assets.

        Unfortunately that's the way Howard wanted it - to punish those who don't want to live his (religious) way of life.

      • cadwalader on 03/09/2023 - 14:19

        This doesn’t seem fair, hook up with someone and then take half their assets.

        That is why you only hook up long term with some who has a similar level of assets as you

  • carlJack on 30/08/2023 - 16:40
    +32

    This is not gonna end well

    • geekcohen on 30/08/2023 - 16:43
      +28

      Warm up that popcorn. Next thread - "GF Broke up with me, now wants 50% of my apartment that I bought by myself, advice?"

    • Gunnar on 30/08/2023 - 16:45
      +2

      That’s my thoughts. I mean if you’re unhappy in the relationship don’t move in together

      Yes The thought crosses your mind if you have more than your partner but in all honesty if you don’t see the relationship going somewhere long term then don’t take the risk

      • bigbunj92 on 30/08/2023 - 16:46
        +32

        I'm happy in my relationship. I'm merely trying to be responsible about my future at the same time

        • CyberMurning on 30/08/2023 - 17:29
          +14

          thats what everyone said…..

      • SteveB00 on 31/08/2023 - 08:14
        +6

        Everyone who gets married sees the relationship “going somewhere“. 48% of Australian marriages end in divorce.

        • SteveB00 on 31/08/2023 - 17:19

          That may not be the exact statistic it purports to be. However: https://swanfamilylawyers.com.au/blog/2021/7/why-divorce-rat…
          tells us that "… today approximately 50% of marriages and de facto relationships which are also governed by the Family Law Act breakdown."

        • TilacVIP on 31/08/2023 - 18:09

          So 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce ?? & I can only see this increasing.

          Here's the kicker… every couple thinks theirs is different (they're in the other half who don't get divorce, their marriage / relationship is ironclad… etc etc ), until it all goes pear shape.

  • CharityCase on 30/08/2023 - 16:43
    +1

    Your soul…

    • donga100 on 30/08/2023 - 21:37
      +19

      OP please follow this advice. Right up until the part where it says:

      My take is that…

  • Ghost47 on 30/08/2023 - 16:46
    +4

    Just think of whatever the most reasonable and justified outcome could be and the actual outcome will be the polar opposite of that.

    • us3rnam3tak3n on 31/08/2023 - 13:44
      +2

      Can you point out on the dummy where you were hurt?

  • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 16:50
    +1

    It just makes things super awkward in your relationship if you're going to charge your gf rent or have her contribute to groceries and other incidentals to cover the fact that you own the roof over her head. I would write this even if the opposite was true.

    If you guys are in love and want to be live together, then it should be on an equal basis.

    • ozhunter on 30/08/2023 - 18:08
      +4

      If you guys are in love and want to be live together, then it should be on an equal basis.

      What if she doesn't have half to contribute?

      • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 18:21
        +4

        I don't know how it would work in that scenario. I couldn't do it.

        I had a mortgage when I met my husband-then-bf & he was renting. We both decided that it wouldn't work if he moved in & contributed to the mortgage as we wanted something that was both of ours from the start so we rented a place together. We never kept track of any other expenses other than the rent & associated costs, such as electricity, insurance, etc which was split 50/50.

        • star-ggg on 01/09/2023 - 10:14
          +1

          It's not awkward. Your partner was paying off somebody's mortgage either way.

          • [Deactivated] on 01/09/2023 - 10:29

            @star-ggg: Well, it would have been more awkward for him considering the apartment was mine (& the bank's) & he could have risked being kicked out the first time he left a wet towel on the bathroom floor.

            We both didn't consider it a level playing ground to see whether we could actually live together.

            It's not always only about the $.

            • star-ggg on 01/09/2023 - 10:57

              @[Deactivated]: If you 2 had broke up when he left a wet towel on the floor then you would have ended the joint lease anyway? I guess there could be a perceived power imbalance if one owns the property, but I think anyone who choose to play that card is a red flag as a partner anyway.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join