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

              • [Deactivated] on 01/09/2023 - 11:17

                @star-ggg: Yes, but ending a joint tenancy inconveniences both parties rather than just the one person so not so easy.

                Power imbalances are real & can create many issues. People are emotional beings & don't always think rationally.

    • Oipjo on 31/08/2023 - 07:12
      +2

      I think its very reasonable/logical.
      OP may be able to afford his own place, but still has expenses, mortgage alone is a pricey endeavour - and it isn't a rare statistic for couples (esp prior to commitments, marriage, kids) to break up, certainly not an unreasonable request to ask for assistance from partner, though it depends some on their alternative. i.e. Are they willing? Are they paying rent currently? Moving in, and paying half sort of benefits you both in the event of a split, or if you stay together.

      Regarding OPs concern, I think its fair, but to my knowledge you're limited, courts ruling this way SHOULD take things into consideration, prior assets, length of relationship, etc. but (unfortunately, being a bloke - especially) dont rely on it - even judge of person might not be a reliable indicator; because depending on the event of a split, people can be heavily influenced (friends, reason for breakup, vengeful, greed, etc), or show a side they never did.
      Advice here is to protect asset - avoid kids (unless you're ready for them), and unfortunately A LITTLE LESS LOGICAL! .. Considering youre effectively 'committed' after defacto timeline - I'd be recommending to judge your relationship a little more quickly than what may be comfortable, with a little more critique before defacto time is up (and there could be a claim to asset) - sort of along the lines of:
      - Have had conversation about direction of relationship
      - Have opened conversations about money
      - Have opened conversations about kids
      - Short of needing to propose, at least be gauging, if you were to propose, you sort of know the answer to be Yes.
      Make a difficult decision within yourself to carry on, or not. It may be for the better for the added layer of pressure, in the case you find either of you had been 'wasting time' - but I wish for OP to have a successful relationship above all else, or, for two (or more) reasonable people should you eventually split.
      Ultimately while it is unlikely anything untoward anything would happen - from experience and similar stories, it is dangeous out there!

  • pharkurnell on 30/08/2023 - 16:50
    +8

    We’ve been together for less than two years, and have been living together for 1 year

    Hand her the keys now cause once you want contracts and etc it aint going to last.

  • focus123 on 30/08/2023 - 16:50
    +7

    If you charge a rent, then she can claim it as a contribution towards the mortgage, and in a court challenge most likely you will lose some percentage of your apartment should you break up with her.

    • bigbunj92 on 30/08/2023 - 16:53

      What if I charge zero rent? I'm not opposed to it

      • gromit on 30/08/2023 - 18:58
        +11

        there is no absolutes here. The court is not a reasonable entity when it comes to relationship breakdowns, they tend to take into account needs before fairness when it comes to financial matters. If your breakup leaves her homeless and penniless regardless of her contributions she would almost certainly get a chunk in court, likewise anything she contributes could count against the property regardless of rent or no rent, hell even cleaning the house can count. Prenups are basically useless and not worth the paper they are written on unless you are both engaging seperate lawyers and negotiating it from an equal standing. basically if de facto you are at the courts mercy.

      • us3rnam3tak3n on 31/08/2023 - 13:57

        At least by charging zero rent she's not likely to feel like she has contributed to the mortgage and seek compensation should the relationship break down. Asking her to sign a BFA might create a rift.

      • akashra on 31/08/2023 - 18:31
        -1

        That's not really any different, because on moving out it'll be seen that she now has costs that she didn't have previously.

        Basically if you haven't paid off the asset in full, you're going to have a settlement amount. How much that amount is will depend on the length of the relationship and a heap of other factors such as contribution.

        In fact, you may actually be better off if the agreement between the two of you becomes that she has to place an amount, equal to what she might pay in rent, in to a savings account - that basically forms part of her fund if you break up. And, because you're entitled to a share as much as her, you also have a claim on those savings too, so it may cancel out.

        The only time a Financial Agreement might provide significantly more benefit is when you have already paid off the asset in full prior to the relationship, and come in to it with it entirely being in your name. And in either case, they may not provide much protection. Also remember that everything is on the table. Even your superannuation.

        Unfortunately, that's the way the conservative Liberal party have utterly screwed over people who might consider not having a single partner for life.

        Ultimately, get legal advice - not internet advice.

  • c64 on 30/08/2023 - 16:59
    +1

    having a child would screw you over in the case of a breakup. don't know about simply having a defacto relationship, especially considering no contributions from spouse. all things you should be asking when you get proper legal advice

  • dcep on 30/08/2023 - 17:04
    +8

    Look into BFA - Binding Financial Agreements.

    https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/fl/fp/financial-agreements

    • bigbunj92 on 30/08/2023 - 17:07

      I'll do that. Thanks!

      • gromit on 05/09/2023 - 11:06
        +1

        if you go this route make sure you really understand "It is mandatory to get independent legal advice before entering into a Financial Agreement.". That means she has separate independent legal advise and you are both entering into it from a mutual agreement, i.e. if it is you forcing this or she is reluctant or you help her find the lawyer then this can be thrown out by the courts just like any prenup.

        • cupcake on 05/09/2023 - 11:36
          +1

          It's worthless. Don't bother.
          Circumstances change in people's lives.
          You either commit to her or you don't.
          You could have one or six children with her in 10 year's time.
          Decide or let her know it's over.

        • AustriaBargain on 05/09/2023 - 14:25
          +1

          Have to wonder how OP would feel if he found out she just inherited 50 million from uncle Rupert Murdoch. Would he still be so eager to get the iron clad prenup done?

  • GordonD on 30/08/2023 - 17:08
    +4

    The OP had better hope his girlfriend is not seeing what he's posting here planning for WHEN they breakup to make sure she gets nothing, or he's in big trouble. He'd better make sure he's not posting on a PC she has access to, and she never finds out what his OzBargain user name is.

    • ozhunter on 30/08/2023 - 18:10
      +2

      Should she get something if he is paying for all of it? ie, not paying rent or other expenses.

      • GordonD on 30/08/2023 - 18:36

        There are two questions. Should she, and will she. My personal opinion of whether she should is irrelevant to whether she will. And I don't know whether she will. So I can't see what point there is in me expressing an opinion on either.

        • smartazz104 on 31/08/2023 - 12:53
          +2

          The laws seem to have been created back when women stayed at home and did housework…

          • Kangal on 31/08/2023 - 20:34
            +2

            @smartazz104: Yes, and work paid much better when considering the cost of living and housing. A single man from high school could get into work, then work his way up, and financially support a big family on his own.

            Over time, we've eroded those conditions. And those laws which seemed fair, operate in a different economic environment, where it seems unfair.

            I guess the right answer is that prevention is better than the cure. Find a girl who is good-natured, then keep both of yourselves as such. If the relationship breaks, well neither will be wishing pain on the other party. If the relationship blossoms into a family, it's a Nuclear Family. And if the relationship continues on neither becoming larger nor faltering, well again nothing to report. No news is good news too.

          • matt-ozb on 03/09/2023 - 00:21
            +1

            @smartazz104: Yep… and the CoA don't even try to hide that fact .. Family Law Act 1975

  • mr_alligator on 30/08/2023 - 17:10
    +5

    hope you have a mum lol

  • try2bhelpful on 30/08/2023 - 17:11
    +4

    I can feel your pain but what is your sunset clause? How long do you need to be together for everything to be communal property? The man and I have lived together over 40 years and we do have separate bank accounts, Super, share portfolios, etc. This isn’t a “trust” thing it was just easier. We do have joint accounts, joint shares, etc where it made sense to. The house is in both names even though, technically, my wage was the one we funnelled into paying it off. The point is the man was paying for household expenses to free up my wage to go directly into the loan. Your girlfriend might be able to argue along a similar line. You need to talk to a solicitor who can give you the best advice how to go forward on this. You do need to look after your property but this runs the risk of poisoning any relationship you have.

    • mskeggs on 30/08/2023 - 21:06
      +14

      This is the trouble the OP is having. They aren’t thinking as part of a couple, but they are living as one.
      When they are a couple, and they look after each other when they have the flu, or put on a combined load of washing, or pick up a present for the other person’s Mum, or cook dinner, or give a lift to the train, they are contributing to the success of the relationship.
      Another part of that success is building wealth together.
      Regardless of where the dollars are earned and by who, that wealth building happens together after they are a couple - you don’t get to build wealth as an individual but have all the other benefits and obligations of a relationship.

      Some people think it is unfair, but there isn’t a way for the court to get a partner to repay disproportionate caring or chores or support, so dollars it is where the settlement takes place.

  • shaybisc on 30/08/2023 - 17:14

    2 years and it's a de facto relationship then you're off to the races.

    • bigbunj92 on 30/08/2023 - 17:25
      +34

      I was in a relationship for 4 years in my early 20s. We lived together. Had a couple of horses as pets on a semi-rural rental property. Thought she'd be my wife. Over a six month period, that all changed as we realised we were going down different paths in life. Sometimes, things like that happen even when you least expect it. Things can change and it can be no one's fault in particular. That's life

      As I mentioned above, I'm happy in my relationship, I'm also keen to protect myself from the whatever-odds chance of being left in my mid-30s (or 40s?) with half of what I worked for over the past decade. You probably never know the true nature of anyone until their darkest or most desperate days

      • garetz on 30/08/2023 - 17:34
        -4

        Once you're in a defacto relationship its too late, you will lose half under Australian law, there is only 1 remedy and that's to break up.

        • KangaDrew on 30/08/2023 - 17:48
          +8

          there is only 1 remedy and that's to break up

          This too is why you're single

        • brad1-8tsi on 30/08/2023 - 17:49
          +16

          Once you're in a defacto relationship its too late, you will lose half under Australian law,

          That would be incorrect and simplistic in the extreme.

        • trankillity on 31/08/2023 - 11:25

          Only if the other partner WANTS half. If it's obvious (and tracked) that one party has been paying for pretty much everything and the breakup is amiable, then the partner may not even want to claim.

      • ozbjunkie on 31/08/2023 - 08:18

        Exactly.

        So many comments here boil down to "if you really loved her then you would" or "you're just thinking like a single person while you get to be in a relationship".

        Pretty sure the laws about splitting assets were formed to ensure people could have a decent life after a relationship. Relationships don't always last, as you know, and as others seem to ignore.

      • Freitag on 05/09/2023 - 07:47

        Rest to try to have these conversations early on to work out if you're on the same path.

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

      what a stupidly outdated way to approach relationships…
      youd be an absolute idiot to walk into a defacto with substantial assets and not protect yourself

      • ozbjunkie on 31/08/2023 - 08:21
        +2

        Of course you would.

        But if you were a person without substantial assets and were trying to attach yourself to someone with substantial assets, you'd be an idiot not to try to convince them they are some combination of cruel or unusual if they wish to protect the wealth they accumulated prior to your partnership.

        Much easier to understand if we presume everyone is acting in their own self interest.

    • KangaDrew on 30/08/2023 - 17:48

      just break up, you are wasting her and your time

      This is why you're single

  • shaybisc on 30/08/2023 - 17:23
    +1

    The default is 50/50 split if there are no kids, then you have to argue your way back from there.

    "How did you and your partner acquire what you have?

    After it is worked out what you and your partner have to divide, the next step is to work out how did you and your partner acquire it. This includes assessing:

    what each of you owned when you first started living together?
how did you and your partner buy property when you were together?
who paid the mortgage and other expenses for the home and/or investment properties?
who was responsible for caring for the home and the family?
whether either you or your partner received any gifts or inheritances?
how long were you and partner together?

    Your and your partner’s contribution is then usually expressed as a percentage, for example 55% to you and 45% to your partner. It is important to note that there is NOT an automatic assessment that you and your partner’s property is to be divided equally (50% each) just because you and your partner were in a de facto relationship."

    https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/family-law/de-facto-relati…

    • Prop Trader on 30/08/2023 - 17:55
      +9

      You do realise you just twisted what is written on that website.

      It starts off with contribution. If it's 100% and 0%, then that is where it starts off… I don't know why I continue to see this propaganda about 50% is where it starts off…

      • shaybisc on 30/08/2023 - 18:52
        -3

        I defer to your superior knowledge of this subject, your honour.

        • jv on 31/08/2023 - 13:41

          Prop Trader is an ex magistrate.

    • Yummy on 30/08/2023 - 19:57
      +5

      The default is 50/50 split if there are no kids

      That's bull crap. Only if you have the money & willing to go up to supreme court. Men always lose.

      • ozbjunkie on 31/08/2023 - 08:22
        +3

        "it will be cheaper to settle" said the hostage negotiator

  • CyberMurning on 30/08/2023 - 17:28
    +4

    charge my partner “rent” of sorts

    well.. bye bye honey….

    • wlan11g on 01/09/2023 - 16:32
      -1

      My thoughts exactly!

      OP took it upon himself to take out a mortgage under his own name, and wants his spouse to "help cover the mortgage", why didn't he just go joint mortgage with the de facto, so both can help pay it off equally

  • JafferMoney on 30/08/2023 - 17:28
    +18

    That is COMPLETELY unfair that for a property she paid NOTHING for she would own HALF…that is robbery, that cannot be right can it? Is the law that F***ED up?

    • brad1-8tsi on 30/08/2023 - 17:38

      Sometimes a partner brings something else to the relationship besides money.

      • Bunnyburger on 31/08/2023 - 13:08

        Like unlimited BJ-Works!

    • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 17:40
      -2

      Why is OzB such a battle of the sexes ….. all of the time? If the gf owned the apartment & the bf lived there & bailed after 2 years then he would have the same rights under the law.

      • shaybisc on 30/08/2023 - 17:46
        +14

        This happens to be a male/female relationship where the male owns the property but it could equally be the other way around, or two males or two females or two genderqueers or two anything.

        • andresampras on 30/08/2023 - 18:01
          -3

          or two anything.

          Anything?

          • franco cozzo on 30/08/2023 - 18:06
            -3

            @andresampras: they are just being inclusive…you wouldnt want to discrimate against furries and people that identify as cats?

          • shaybisc on 30/08/2023 - 18:10
            +7

            @andresampras: I'm sure there are a few categories that I'm not aware of so I used the catch-all.

            • andresampras on 30/08/2023 - 18:13

              @shaybisc: as long as both parties are human, I'm ok

              • GordonD on 30/08/2023 - 18:40
                +2

                @andresampras:

                as long as both parties are human, I'm ok

                I have a galah that was brought up amongst humans, and thinks its a small human, ie, it IDENTIFIES as human. Does that count?

                • andresampras on 30/08/2023 - 18:54
                  +1

                  @GordonD:

                  Did you know?
                  Both male and female Galahs look the same. You can
                  only tell the difference by the colour of their eyes; the
                  males have brown eyes while the females have red.

                  Galahs are monogamous meaning that they will stay
                  with the same breeding partner for life.
                  source: https://www.wildlife.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/…

                  All the best to you and your partner, Gords

              • ripesashimi on 30/08/2023 - 19:08

                @andresampras: wouldn that discriminate against people who identify as pets?

      • coffeeinmyveins on 30/08/2023 - 18:21
        +7

        he would have the same rights under the law.

        lol

        Men get absolutely shafted when it comes to stuff like this because at the end of the day it's a judge that is deciding a lot of the split.

        Look at custody and how often men get shafted with it and then end up having to pay for it. I never see it the other way around.

        • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 18:38

          I'm charging you rent for stealing my formatting

          ;)

      • pufffdragon on 30/08/2023 - 21:05
        +6

        If the gf owned the apartment & the bf lived there & bailed after 2 years then he would have the same rights under the law.

        Ha ha, In an alternate universe maybe.

        • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 21:13
          -2

          Read up on the law ….. if it is written that only a female partner has rights then suggest perhaps you start using feminine pronouns to take advantage.

          • coffeeinmyveins on 31/08/2023 - 07:54
            +2

            @[Deactivated]: "he would have the same rights under the law".

            The rights under the law (specifically the Family Law Act of 1975) takes into account a lot of factors like ability to earn an income, children, contributions etc. There is no pre-determined percentage however I would almost bet money that women come out on top vs the men. Same as when custody is determined for children.

      • Oipjo on 31/08/2023 - 07:50
        +5

        Whilst true on paper; regarding having the same rights, it requires a longer process, and more of a fight for a man to prove this TODAY.
        Equality, whilst I, and most others, are all for it in all regards - isn’t quite yet all equal (and in some areas of discussion, in arguing for equality; the pendulum has thrown the balance the other way)

      • jv on 31/08/2023 - 13:42
        +1

        he would have the same rights under the law.

        nope.

        • [Deactivated] on 31/08/2023 - 13:43
          -1

          No goat for you tomorrow!

          • jv on 31/08/2023 - 13:44

            @[Deactivated]: It arrived yesterday.

            • [Deactivated] on 31/08/2023 - 13:44

              @jv: New billy goats?

              • jv on 31/08/2023 - 13:44

                @[Deactivated]: nanny

                • [Deactivated] on 31/08/2023 - 13:47
                  +1

                  @jv: We'll just leave nanny goat alone.

                  kfc & maccas for lunch…. but we have do go for a run around the farm so that we feel we've earnt & deserve the fast food.

                  @Muzeeb

    • AustriaBargain on 30/08/2023 - 18:02
      +1

      Depends how long they were together for. If she was supporting him 20 years prior while he saved for the apartment, then would it be fair if she could just be kicked out on her butt whenever he wants? She cooking his food, darning his socks, helping make his home, helping take care of his emotional and sexual needs so he can focus on work. But if they just started dating then I doubt any court would award her half of anything if they broke up.

      But you have to consider most people actually want a life partner that will commit to each other forever. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Applies equally to when the woman is whether than the man, share a life for decades, would it be fair for the man to walk away from the relationship with nothing while the woman, now financially secure, upgrades to a younger toy boy?

      • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 18:06
        +2

        She cooking his food, darning his socks, helping make his home, helping take care of his emotional and sexual needs so he can focus on work.

        What the what ?

        • bigbunj92 on 30/08/2023 - 18:25
          +1

          To be fair, she does darn my socks like no one else

          • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 18:27
            -2

            @bigbunj92: I donate clothing when a button goes missing

    • coffeeinmyveins on 30/08/2023 - 18:20
      +2

      On the flip side, if she quits her job and takes care of the house and they have a kid together, why SHOULDn'T she be entitled to some retribution if they split up?

      It's generally not as cut and dry as you're thinking, but yeah, people sometimes do get absolutely wrecked by this sort of thing.

      • coffeeinmyveins on 31/08/2023 - 07:55

        lol at the downvotes

      • Protractor on 31/08/2023 - 10:31
        +2

        'restitution', maybe. Or recompense. Retribution? Payback? Punishment?

        • try2bhelpful on 31/08/2023 - 10:32

          I think it depends on how you look at it. :)

          • Protractor on 31/08/2023 - 10:33

            @try2bhelpful: Some would say bringing a kid into todays world, is punishment enough

            • try2bhelpful on 31/08/2023 - 10:40

              @Protractor: It depends on who is doing the punishing and who is being punished. My fundamental view is don’t have a child unless you really, really want one. Personally I didn’t want a child that much. What is interesting is my family line is pretty much dying out. Most of my nieces and nephews aren’t having kids either. It reminds me a tad of Idiocracy.

              • Protractor on 31/08/2023 - 10:42

                @try2bhelpful: The kids aren't the problem.It's the adults, how many of them there are, and what they have done to the big blue "playground."

                • try2bhelpful on 31/08/2023 - 10:45

                  @Protractor: Yup, yup, yup. There is no Planet B. The advantage is as long as we don’t blow the shit out of the place, or destroy the atmosphere irreparably, the earth is likely to recover once we go extinct. It may take millions of years but the earth can be patient.

    • mehow on 31/08/2023 - 10:09
      +1

      welcome to the redpilled world….

  • brad1-8tsi on 30/08/2023 - 17:46
    +8

    I'd suggest that you get a Binding Financial Agreement. It does require agreement of both parties and it will cost money.

    At this early stage of the relationship her entitlement to the communal pool of assets (that's her assets and your assets combined) is quite low but as time moves on it increases.

    To quote my solicitor "It doesn't matter how disjointed the earning capacity is or how much either party brought into the relationship. It doesn't matter if they worked 60 hour weeks earning $200k pa and you sat around watching TV and doing SFA. The longer you've been together and if there are no kids, the closer it gets to 50:50."

  • AustriaBargain on 30/08/2023 - 17:55

    If you charge her formal rent for the whole apartment she may have the rights to it that any renter or sharer would. Are you sure you want it to be her home too, rather than just her staying in your home?

  • Prop Trader on 30/08/2023 - 17:57
    +2

    You are in a good position.

    It is very easy to keep electronic records of bank statements more than 7 years. At a minimum you should be archiving these.

    I wouldn't worry about things going sour because if you are ever in a position where the contribution of the other spouse is taken into account, it won't be for some ridiculous amount anyway.

    The scaremongering about taking 50% of your property away is just that. It does not start with a 50% split. It starts with the amount of contributions… In your scenario it will always start at 100% to 0% and be adjusted for the various different contributory amounts which can include housework and extra-curricular activities…

    Now if your spouse has brought in their own property, that gets adjusted too, but the starting point is always at the point where the relationship originates. Never forget this…

    If your spouse only pays the water bill for example, then that gets counted in. If you are angry about that, then you should realise you did benefit too because of the economies of scale. Believe it or not, many will go crazy about something simple as such being included…

    • Muzeeb on 30/08/2023 - 18:15
      +5

      extra-curricular activities…

      Niiiiice

      • andresampras on 30/08/2023 - 20:02
        +4

        You are in a good position.

        Giggity

    • mehow on 31/08/2023 - 10:15
      +1

      this is bad advice honestly… the best thing for the OP to do is get a BFA NOW if he wants to continue the relationship. Alternative is end it. The legal fees to defend things down the track far outweigh costs setting up a BFA now.

  • Thor Bargain God on 30/08/2023 - 18:01
    +44

    Man, so much bad advice here from people who think they know the score but they don't. I got some preliminary advice from a couple of different lawyers a number of years ago. Courts may take certain things into account, however you're likely to be going for roughly 50:50 on most assets, including super. That equation can also be tilted in your partner's favour if you had kids and she had custody, so she might get the lion's share of the assets including the family home at that point. Then there's child support… Still, you don't even have to have kids to be forced to pay spousal support after the relationship has ended, as the courts deem that if there is a disparity in incomes and your partner was used to a certain way of life while you were together, that you funded. Spousal support can either be paid over time or just ripped out from your share of the assets. So you see that you can also be looking at paying for costs to sustain her future lifestyle. There aren't many ways to protect yourself either - many prenups don't hold up in court and they're very expensive to instate, given the risk that lawyers may face if the agreement is later found defective. It tends to be only super wealthy people who establish these, but they've become fairly uncommon in Australia, particularly compared to the US. This is why you can't believe all the stuff you see on tv. I've met many older men who have had good careers but have nothing after a couple of failed relationships. Like I know of a guy right now who is extremely depressed and lives on a boat, while his prior 2 partners live in the houses he predominantly paid for. This might sound misogynistic, however this is purely an observation - a well know large accounting firm has been bringing in all of their SMSF clients for seminars and they run one in particular about the 'army' of impoverished older women out that are out there with the sole goal of shacking up with a couple of blokes for a short while and then splitting with half of everything they've accumulated over their lifetime. They are warning to take extreme caution. My partner was in the airlines and many of the stewardesses talked about how they knew that they could take half from a guy at any point in the relationship, so they were only after guys with money. There are professional organisations established in this country to facilitate the gold diggers. Honestly it is out of control and I think a lot of the informed men may never end up settling down as a result. You have to be tactical in your thinking and get good advice - for instance, rather than take a gift from your parents to buy a house or a car, have it written up as a loan agreement. Have your parents setup a testamentary trust for your inheritance to be paid into that your partner can never touch (although it has been challenged recently in some recent cases, so the setup and use has to be spot on). There are books, websites, podcasts and advisers out there to help with this stuff. I honestly feel sick when I hear about guys losing everything and the mental state that can set in shortly after. I was lucky the girl I met already had a property, so that gave me some financial protection in terms of the split of assets and it negated the need to go to court, but most others are less fortunate. I also know of a couple of people who have spent $200,000 fighting it out in court, and I think that was just their side of the court costs. I've seen quotes far less than this though - around $30k each for a very simple situation about a decade or so ago. That is still a heap of money though in the context of this situation involving 1 apartment. The Family Court is evil, so please be cautious.

    • Godric on 30/08/2023 - 18:06
      +26

      Holy text

    • Prop Trader on 30/08/2023 - 18:08
      +1

      Like I know of a guy right now who is extremely depressed and lives on a boat, while his prior 2 partners live in the houses he predominantly paid for.

      Is that because of the poor advice received? As far as I know this should almost never happen if proper advice is sought. Usually there is some duress involved or some dodgy dealing by one of the parties forging another's signature which leads to one party ending up with nothing even though they contributed almost 100%.

      The only reason we have the current status quo of the 50:50 split thing is because the solicitors are somewhat indoctrinated into that belief, but that needs to change. It's like how traders make the market. Collectively the opinions of those within the legal profession allow for these suboptimal outcomes for their clients.

      Mind me prying into the details, but was this by consent? If so, that explains it.

      Every time I have seen a suboptimal outcome it is because that person was doing something by consent. The independent advice received was non-existent or substandard.

      • Thor Bargain God on 30/08/2023 - 20:48
        +25

        When kids are involved, you're lucky to walk away with anything. I don't know this guy well but he's in a very depressed state. The solicitors are providing advice based upon the law and principles and rulings of the Family Court, not conjecture. It is not indoctrination, it is fact. I did a lot of reading at the time regarding past rulings, principles employed etc. The lawyers I met with were very smart people. I work in the corporate world in areas involving compliance with detailed legislation and regulations, as well as hold tertiary qualifications in law, I put my faith in them. My father also had a few good horror stories from the seminars run by the accounting firm advising him on his SMSF. My partner tells me all the time about the conversations women in Australia regularly have about stripping men of their assets for fun. Unfortunately it is enshrined in law. There was also a good article in the West Australian about a decade ago about a woman married to a wealthy man claiming a phenomenal weekly maintenance. Because her whole life was outsourced, it was itemised down to the n-th degree, with $910 required for ironing services and $10,000 for new clothes every week. I also know that partly because of this, there are a lot of older men who prefer to go on sugar daddy websites looking for companionship, where there are something like 260,000 women offering their services. It costs and arm and a leg, but these guys are wise to the fact that living with a woman could cost them much more - particularly if they get wrecked by 2-3 of them in succession. The other thing I've noticed is that a lot of men often settle, rather than fight and lose everything in court fees. This guy who sat next to me at work chose that path partly for his own sanity, and thankfully he's moved on and started a family with a third wife, who seems a lot nicer than the prior 2. I don't know if he will have much to retire on though.

        • ozbjunkie on 31/08/2023 - 08:28
          +5

          Despite 2 walls of text there's too much truth here to ignore.

          For every 1 that upvotes this I imagine 10 more agree and say nothing.

        • Juice-Wa on 31/08/2023 - 12:41

          started a family with a third wife

          Sounds like a real upstanding guy…

    • coffeeinmyveins on 30/08/2023 - 18:22
      +13

      do you even paragraph, bro?

      Like I know of a guy right now who is extremely depressed and lives on a boat, while his prior 2 partners live in the houses he predominantly paid for.

      You've given a very small part of this story and have probably left out (or he did) key facts that contributed to this scenario happening.

    • AustriaBargain on 30/08/2023 - 18:22

      Shouldn't OP want his own children to be taken care of financially? To have a home to live in, afford new clothes, go to good schools, take up expensive extracurricular activities? OP risks ruining the relationship before it begins if he starts harbouring these kind of attitudes. He risks dying alone in his empty apartment.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2023 - 18:57
      +2

      This might sound misogynistic, however this is purely an observation - a well know large accounting firm has been bringing in all of their SMSF clients for seminars and they run one in particular about the 'army' of impoverished older women out that are out there with the sole goal of shacking up with a couple of blokes for a short while and then splitting with half of everything they've accumulated over their lifetime. They are warning to take extreme caution.

      My partner was in the airlines and many of the stewardesses talked about how they knew that they could take half from a guy at any point in the relationship, so they were only after guys with money. There are professional organisations established in this country to facilitate the gold diggers.

      Oh my ….

      • Protractor on 31/08/2023 - 10:36

        So getcha self a nice subservient mail order bride and turn the tables boys!
        s/

    • JafferMoney on 31/08/2023 - 16:23

      That is MIGHTY FARKED!

      • Randolph Duke on 01/09/2023 - 02:06
        +1

        Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join