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

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?

Comments

  • -2

    The way it's supposed to work is, you express your commitment by spending every cent you have on a wedding, and you give up everything (assets, life as you used to know it) for the relationship. You have nothing left to be taken from you.
    The key is to choose wisely - you only get one crack at this, then work hard at ensuring the relationship doesn't fail.

    The new way - mock commitment and try to find ways to protect assets when the relationship ultimately fails.

    • …. you only get one crack at this ….

      Elizabeth Taylor says "boo"

    • There is only the new way .. you can't trust anyone .. might feel like it now, but people change too .. and you get no say sometimes despite being a great partner and not wanting to separate.

  • Haven’t read through the whole thread, but unless you’re buying it outright, she will be left with half the loan and half the equity should you separate.

    Or more simply, say you sell, then give her 50%, she will get: selling price minus selling cost minus cost of paying off the loan / 2. So you lose out on half of the deposit you put in, and half whatever profit of the sale.

    So it’s not as much as you think and not some kind of big favour you’re doing her.

    • Good reminder to simplify the reality of actual dollars

    • Dont forget the super btw

  • +8

    In my case 20+ years ago, I worked longer hours, earned more, had more super, more savings before buying and moving in together. Her formal claim was that her contribution, spending more time at home enabled me to perform my job better so that counted as more value than my higher financial contribution.

    Then because she had 2 teenage children and I had one living with me, her future needs exceeded mine. Her lower income provided a double whammy because her income could not sustain the same standard of living for her teenagers to live as before. Third whammy was she claimed not to have meaningful savings (a lie) while I did. Fourth whammy was that she wanted to keep the house but could only afford a small mortgage, so the teenagers would not have to be uprooted from the local school. I know that was a lie because a real estate agent slipped up by telling me she had been discussing a potential sale agreement … he thought I knew about it.

    Effectively, after 3 years together she was claiming about 70% of total assets despite lower initial contribution.

    In the end, after spending a lot on legal fees (close to $100K between us in today's values) we settled because she ran out of money for the solicitors. About 50/50.

    • +3

      Ouch

    • Holy fudge that's a debacle .. sorry dude.

    • Fark bro, hope ur ok mate.
      Ur the poster boy of the inequatiable archain laws. Really feel terriable for ya - I juts hope that serves as a reminder and warning to everyone else.

      Dam bro, why they did u like that.

      • +3

        Throw an AVO into the mix as well. Totally false. She was still living there and it was to prevent contact and so delay things. That meant everything had to go through solicitors. I fought the AVO (self defended but after a session with the solicitor on how to proceed). I had her in the witness box for maybe an hour but still not finished at the end of the day. Rather than face a second installment of that and seeing her tale of woe evaporate further, she agreed to drop it.

        2001, so it's ancient history now but it permanently changes your outlook.

        One interesting tip my solicitor advised: If it ever goes to court you will fare better if you are in a low paying job and can justify why. Better than unemployed because you might easily get another high paying job. But if you say the higher paid job was too stressful and affecting your health that suggests a permanent future of low pay.

        • yeah that might not even work coz they judge will go on your earning capacity not earning actual…

          yeah its (profanity), glad u have moved on and hopefully doing better, people should heed ur wise words and learn from that situation.

        • +1

          80%+ of the AVOs are fake… The excessive DV propaganda is only encouraging women to game the system further ..no wonder 50 dads take their lives every week.. family law in this country is a joke

  • +3

    Alot of women who are low earners are very actively looking for semi wealthy men. For them it's their most practical chance of being wealthy in life. It's a very big problem in Australia. If you hang out in such groups you will be shocked at the mentality of these women and how "normalised" this kind of thinking is getting. Think of it as lottery you keep winning every two years.
    She will get 50% of your apartment as soon as you hit the 2 year mark. There isn't much you can do to protect yourself as it's the law. Move out to a rental property or break up.

    • "She will get 50% of your apartment as soon as you hit the 2 year mark"
      Rubbish. She would need to show that :
      She has made equal contributions to repayments ( or in other areas that amount to this ), the deposit ( again lump sum contributions somewhere else and you benefit ) or that you are supporting her. Unless there is a child then she may end up with 100%.
      There is no automatic right to property in either marriage or de-facto unless certain conditions are met.
      Consult a lawyer not ozbargain if you want a correct answer.

      • +2

        She doesn't have to contribute directly to the financial status of the house/property. It can be done by cleaning, fixing things within the house etc. Also, if she it having her mail sent there.

        • bingo! partner ship

    • -1

      “very actively looking for semi wealthy men…”, in short you meant gold diggers? They have been around for centuries I believe.

  • +1

    OP of course wants to break up and have nothing to with the other half along with property ownership

    I don't like the laws here all of a sudden defacto can just take your money. It's BS

    If the either half did not contribute do not expect to get anything from you that should be the law

    • +1

      Yep, it's BS .. and they wonder why there's domestic violence problems .. you're basically forced to stick together .. even if they turn into crazy people

      • Yeah is there a way to sign a contract before you have a defacto relationship? I guess not a good way because it would make each other feel awkward towards finances

        Listing out say you own the property before entering such relationship and if things go sour. The party who has not make any contributions get nothing??

      • +2

        Your comment doesn't make sense ….. what DV problems eventuate if Australia's laws allow your crazy ass defacto to leave you & take all of your money ?

        You're so caught up in making Aus the bad country along with females being out to rob every guy that you cannot see straight to even comment properly.

        Take a break!

        • Scammers are out and about though. And it can be relationships at play. It's the truth. But we cannot stereotype I agree

          1. Re-read … I didn't mention about males vs females.

          2. Laws are designed for a different century and are unfair today .. makes it hard to separate in some cases, so couples are stuck together in same house with ongoing relationship issues.

  • +5

    Don't play house if you don't like the terms of the game.

    You need to start thinking about if you can commit to her long term, and have the discussion with her, what does she want? If you're not on the same page and don't want to risk your assets you'll need to end the relationship and wait until you find the right girl.

    • +2

      Who knows nowadays lots of couples don't know what they want. It's getting harder and harder to find the right girl. Let alone talking about future and finances. We are already in housing crisis

    • -1

      Yep great point. That’s why the law exists. Sadly sleeping around - if that’s what u wona do - is dangerous now days and u should only be together if u want long term or it’s not fair on her and the courts will even it outs - hard

  • If 2 years together considered a defecto relationship and is entitled to half. - even if she dosnt move in.

  • +1

    You can also justify it like this:
    1 session with an average hooker: $500
    Sex everyday for 2 years: 500x2x365: $365k

    If 50 percent of the net profit of the property value is smaller than 365k then it's a financially sound situation. Otherwise break up.

    • +1

      You forgot to add in housekeeper, cook, personal assistant, driver, etc. The money is racking up quickly.

    • +5

      realistically you'd be lucky to get something once a week if it's a long term relationship…

      I'm actually going through separation now so my maths for the future is:
      If I don't get something organically (dating) in a fortnight then say I pay $250 * 26 (fortnights a year) = $6500 as the worst case scenario I can't get a girl for free ;) realistically the dates, etc will cost the same anyway

      Sex for 10 years = $65K

      I am losing multiple times of that and only had sex 5 times in the last year.. if that ;)

      No point being in a relationship if there's a chance of losing money in the future

    • +1

      Presumption being that the relationship only exists to be an avenue of carnal activity. Is this really how you view relationships?

    • +2

      Have sex everyday? Are you 18 or superman?

  • If you were already living together before you buy it, then yeah it's basically 50% hers the second you have paid for it. Sorry, but that's the way the world works.

    If you owned it already before meeting her it would be yours still.

    • If you owned it already before meeting her it would be yours still.

      Not if she lives with op for more than 2 years, the longer she stays with op the more she gets share of things in case break up, even if she just stays at home and does nothing!

  • +6

    OzB is a bad place to ask these questions. You will get hugely biased, incorrect and incomplete opinions. Go to a lawyer. Better yet, one day become a lawmaker and change our law.

    • What law do you want changed?

  • +2

    Firstly, I am a guy. I don't like how you treat her. She might not pay a cent to the apartment. She at least pays for other stuff and spends time with you. And she let you bang her too. Are you serious about this relationship?

  • +3

    If you are living together, then you are a couple. That means that you share everything, assets, debts, risk etc. There is more to being a couple than money. Who cleans, cooks, does laundry etc. Do you share a room. If you arent ready to put it all on the line, then don't move in with anyone. It's not hard.

    • So friends can't live together?

  • -1

    I wouldn't worry too much my partner at the time had two investment properties and I had just bought one was together 3 years than split didn't go after each other's assets but it depends on the people I suppose

    • +3

      lucky she had more $$ otherwise you'd be F#@$@^&

      • +1

        Very much this.
        OPs partner owns nothing

  • yes!

  • Hahahahahahaahahaha

  • +2

    "in a de facto relationship"

    This is all you need. None of the rest really matters.

    By being in a de facto relationship, she "earns" a % of the house as time goes on. After 5 years maybe she can sue for 20-30% of the then value of the place? After 10 years maybe 50%? Lots of ifs and thens, but consult with a family lawyer for more deets.

  • Are you close to your parents? Get them to set up a trust and put the house in the trusts name.

  • +1

    Op please i beg you not to take advice on here…

    If you dont trust her why are you with her? lol.
    im glad me and my mate trust each other not to do this or even type stuff like this on forums. its sad.

    • +8

      people change, don't be naive.. My partner had been saying she'd never want anything for the last 10 years since she acknowledged I was the one really focusing on building wealth i.e. extremely frugal, riding bicycle everywhere (didn't own car), eating cheaply (only deals), etc whereas she didn't make much $$ and spent more ..

      Anyway, 2 weeks after separation lawyer letter arrived… DO NOT TRUST.. if there's trust what's the problem with signing BFA or protecting assets then?

      • ^ This! Things change and they change in a way you don't expect.

        I was married for 5 years, earning more than her and supporting her for 2 years when she wasn't even working and then when we split, I ended up paying her out $180,000.

    • It's sad but it's true! There is someone already said statistic shows 50% marriage end in divorce.

  • +1

    It is so sad today's relationships are based on benefits only. You are moving to your house and you are thinking of charging her rent? Is she your life partner or housemate?

  • -1

    Interesting comments, people who don't live together before marriage have a higher percentage of long lasting marriages. Thoughts?

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/is-cohabitation-still-linked-to-g…

    • ie high risk of breakup to test the waters before marriage .. all the more reason for prenup.

    • +3

      I would hazard a guess it would be because there would be enough people who think sex before marriage is a sin, or culturally unacceptable to skew the figures. Those same groups would probably have a stronger ethic that marriage is for keeps.

      • Good point, maybe the stronger ethic does have an impact.

        On the flip side does that mean ppl get into marriage without that ethic??

        There's an argument where psychologically living together without being married is like a pretend marriage with an exit clause.. which could not be good training for real marriage.

    • https://ifstudies.org/about/our-mission

      You're quoting from an American site that has an extreme bias towards promoting marriage (probably with Christian fundamentalist leanings) and seeks advocates that "Strong families make strong societies; fragile families make for fragile societies."

      It's definitely not worth giving any weight to.

  • +1

    I m going through a separation with my ex except I have a lot of shares, a company and a few investment properties. I let her move in without a FBA (financial binding agreement). She will go after your super, investment, shares, your future earnings, even your watches (or valuable memorabilia like a messi signed soccer ball). Divorce rates is almost 50% in Australia, chances are very high that things might go wrong in the future. Protect yourself.

    • Where are you getting your figures its 2.2 per 1000 here which is way less than 50

      https://aifs.gov.au/research/facts-and-figures/divorces-australia-2023#:~:text=The%20crude%20divorce%20rate%20(divorces,of%20divorces%20recorded%20since%201976.

      • +1

        Divorce rate is 50%. You're not reading the statistic properly. 1000 people aren't all married and that's the crude divorce rate.

        • Crude dicorce rate is the one.the government uses . I dont know what you are using because you don't have a source

    • Does an FBA hold any weight? Plenty of wriggle room to void it

      • If you write up a BFA that says she gets half the apartment it will probably hold up

        • I'm referring to situations such as signing with duress etc. It's a bit of a grey area

          • @vinni9284: If she is getting half why should you need to put her under duress?

          • @vinni9284: FBA requires both parties to have lawyers (so it will a cost to her). Cost is about 8-10k I think. So the ‘duress’ part shouldn’t be a problem. U can’t just hire a lawyer, draft it out and let her sign without her lawyer involved

            • @Laundryboy: So she pays $10k for a lawyer and gets nothing at the end. How does that work?

              • @Tleyx: She can stipulate the amount she wants after the ‘breakup’. Similarly, OP pays tens of thousand for his property, gf pays nothing but if they separate she will get a significant portion and OP gets nothing in the end but a broken heart, possible alimony, lawyer fees and might have to sell the house to pay off the money he owed her.
                But you are right, she can refuse to have FBA.

                • @Laundryboy: So she stipulates half, whats the point of.getting a BFA again?

                  • @Tleyx: At least the OP knows what’s he is getting into? If he agree to the BFA (which he don’t need to agree to), then that’s it.

                    • @Laundryboy: Sounds like a waste of $10k.

                      Lawyers must love this BS. Get $10k break a relationship. Winning for the lawyers

                      • @Tleyx: If you have BFA, probably will have less issues if you separate and probably less lawyer hours at that time (lawyers charging ave 400-500ph). If you have valuable assets involved, your partner earns way less than you and didn’t contribute to your assets, you are looking losing an amount that is way way way way more than 10k. I can’t see why this is BS?

                        • @Laundryboy: Because they wouldnt sign a BFA in the first place unless they get half. Why would they?

                          So you waste money getting a bfa drean up.

                          Why not just break up with them before and save the lawyer fees

                          • @Tleyx: Then at least OP knows what the other party will be expecting/doing if you separate. Up to the OP if he can accept this situation or not.

                            • @Laundryboy: So they are in the same situation but just spent $10k on BFA.

                              I dont get the difference? Except that you are poorer. And without the BFA she might take less than half, why would she do that if she has a BFA for half?

                              • @Tleyx: Defacto comes into play usually after 24 months of staying together. BFA is to ensure a clearer separation of assets if the event comes into play. She can state what she wants in the BFA, could be half, could be nothing, could be cash etc. basically the Oz Version of prenup. If you don’t have assets, then don’t do it. If you already own a house with 20% deposit on a 1 million house, in 24 months and you separate, u have to pay her 100k cash to retain your house…. then maybe having a BFA isn’t that bad ?

                • @Laundryboy:

                  OP gets nothing in the end but a broken heart ….

                  Maybe OP initiated the break-up & has a non-broken heart?

  • +4

    Dont listen to people here who says dont worry because they have never been through it.

    • +2

      The ones saying don't worry were the lucky ones. They also seem to ignore the fact that OP's woman has no assets. And that she's a woman.

      • gender makes no difference .. why do you need to raise that?

        women also get screwed from slacko husbands that do nothing .. and vice-versa.

        give the slacko person an amazing lifestyle for a few years and suddenly they're entitled to that lifestyle for life .. and need compensation for future earnings.

        • +1

          Yes, men can screw women over too, but you only ever hear a handful of these stories compared to the countless ones where the woman screws over the man.

          Let's not forget a lot of women use the old "I'm on the pill" trick to get a free ride through life. Men can't use this as easily, so gender sort of does make a difference.

          I literally once heard one girl say to another "why don't you just get pregnant to your boyfriend, so you can live off his money?"

          Made me ashamed to be female.

          • +1

            @Some Human: You don’t hear a handful of stories, it happens quite a bit. Someone once put together a list of what it would cost a guy to pay the hourly rate for a housekeeper, baby sitter, cook, etc for the extra an average woman puts into the relationship. It added up to a reasonable chunk of change.

            There are women who see men as a free meal just as there are men who see women as a means to get free sex. Relationships are about communication and give and take. It is a much larger field than just money and sex.

          • +2

            @Some Human:

            Made me ashamed to be female.

            lol

  • +1

    Sometimes the fact of halving your assets with your partner makes you think twice about divorce. Not sure if it's a good or bad thing …

  • +2

    I think it's disgusting we as a society even have to consider these situations.
    No man or woman should lose half of everything they've worked for because of a breakup, what ever happened to common sense.

    • What is your 5c?

    • back in the 60s and 70s, things were very different … … unfortunately the laws are very outdated

  • +1

    So that I understand modern relationship. It's really just another way to get someone to pay your mortgage for you? Like being a land lord with benefits? F me we're stuffed when your 12 months into a relationship and this is your take on moving forward.

    • +1

      I'd think of more like a company … if you are not happy with the contribution of an employee (financial and non-financial), then you need to let them go.

      • +1

        Romantic! Where's the ring, cause I want that!

  • @bigbunj92 I will refer you to this scene from Bone Tomahawk: https://youtu.be/Y4Y8dB2tg8o?si=3BO3gGaxVn4KPBck

    It tells you everything you need to know about co-habiting/getting married.

  • +2

    You said yourself that you are defacto, so she would have a legal claim to your assets.
    Worst case, you break up, she gets lawyers who take no money up front but a percentage of her share at the end. You're forced to do the same to try keep more of your share, you end up with 33% of your net worth, she takes the other 33% and lawyers take the rest. If you're lucky, they don't touch your super.

    Best case, you go on to get married and have a happy life together where money isn't the foundation of your relationship.

  • +2
  • -2

    knock her up get full custordy of the kid, put the house in kids name she cant take anything if ur the sole parent

    • You don’t have any idea do you?

    • +1

      Find a father who can get full custody of kids, it’s rarer than hens teeth. Changing assets names during Separation, the assets value will still be assigned to the common pool, regardless final owner is you or not. Not to mention the stamp duty occurred in changing. Sole parent doesn’t mean u don’t have to pay alimony and child support, esp u earn something and she earns nothing. Good luck with that thinking of yours.

  • +1

    I think the moral of the story here is to always marry someone with more income and assets than you

    • Won’t it still end up in the same OZB discussion forum except for the OP is the other party?

Login or Join to leave a comment