Best way to protect assets’ prior to marriage?

But I would like to hear from someone who has had a finacial agreement that did stand up in court and what lawyer could anyone reccomend to write one up that could stand up in court with no loop holes in the agreement.

Hi windsor,

From what I've heard on the grapevine (note that I do not work in the legal area) that here in Australia, pre-nups aren't legally binding. Now, that could be totally wrong, but that is what I have heard. I understand that you want to get married and you love your partner and that's all very nice, but understand that you do have a lot to lose in a worst case scenario and while it doesn't sound very romantic, you really should be weighing up the benefits of whether it is a good idea to get married or not. The way that the Family Court operates here means that as a man you are immediately at a disadvantage should a divorce be filed.

Of course, this is a decision only you can make. You've been in a similar situation before, so I'm sure you're very well aware of the issues. All I can say to you at this stage is: be very very careful and don't let your heart rule your head. Unfortunately I don't have any contacts for specialists in the area in Melbourne, but I'll do a little research and see what I can find.

Mark
 
Slightly off topic but i would highly recommend attending pre marriage education. Usually it is done within a group setting and can be eye opening in regards to the expectations of each partner upon marriage. I think around 10% did not go on to marry after the course because they came to realise that with rose coloured glasses off they were not compatible.

It's a chance to talk about children , lifestyle, money, who has what control in the relationship, communication styles etc. You will also discover what your partner likes most (and least) about you.

Divorces are horrific all round and I think it wise to protect your marriage by

1) understanding what you are both entering into

2) sorting out key issues BEFORE you get married

3) identify any deal breakers before you get married

I think some want to get married because they want to lock their relationship in as it is right now while others want to get married so everything will change. Might be good if you are on the same page there!

So while planning your pre nup and wedding day don't forget to put even more energy into the actual relationship so it can get off to a flying start. As you say life is short - seize every opportunity for love and joy. Best of luck!
 
Hi there thrash

pre nups have been legally binding since 2000 - provided you comply with all the formalities - they are called binding financial agreements because normally the Family Court can't upset them.
If you do get a document prepared - in conjunction with your trusts - there is a good chance you will be protected.
And as Goanna has pointed out - working on the relationship at the beginning is a very good idea - saves all the heartache at a later stage.
thanks
 
Hi Raddles,

Thanks for the clarification. It's good to know that there is some protection out there for people - both men and women - who bring substantially more assets to a marriage than their partner.

Mark
 
Thank you GoAnna and Mark and everyone who has replied.

When you work for something so hard and take risk's like myself and my parents did to get were we are today, it kills you to know someone can take almost more then half.

My father who passed away, was always afraid that someone would try again and take what I had, and I do want to get married but in no way would I want to see my fathers hard work to be taken by someone else who only has a few k in the bank. Im in my mid 30's and I have the yellow pages sitting beside me and Im calling every family lawyer to get there views on it.

Anymore feedback please post away, as you never know this thread might come in handy one day for someone else.
 
Hi there thrash

pre nups have been legally binding since 2000 - provided you comply with all the formalities - they are called binding financial agreements because normally the Family Court can't upset them.
If you do get a document prepared - in conjunction with your trusts - there is a good chance you will be protected.
And as Goanna has pointed out - working on the relationship at the beginning is a very good idea - saves all the heartache at a later stage.
thanks

I'm just more concerned now, as I have called a few family law firms and when I asked them has any of there finacial agreements stood up in court they kept silent. Have a appointment tom with a family lawyer and will keep you all posted.
 
Hi there
just putting this in context - very few firms are going to have their agreements tested in a court.
Remember that the ability to use the agreements have been available since 2000. One of the first decisions where a faulty agreement was looked at was in 2006 (as it takes some years to get before a court).
A lot of solicitors will try and avoid the binding financial agreements and rather use consent orders - because there is the ability to go back to the court and make changes if there is a change in situation of the parties.
Remember also that a solicitor is covered by professional indemnity insurance. If they get it wrong you can sue them.
If they are keeping silent - it really is because it hasn't come up before.
thanks
 
Hi Raddles,

What are the fundamental differences between a binding financial agreement and a consent order that allows consent orders to be modified, but b.f.a's not allowed?

Mark
 
Hi there
a binding financial agreement will not ordinarily be reviewed by the courts at all. The legislation embodies the rules surrounding them (the agreements) - and once parties have agreed to distribute their property in a certain way - the courts don't have jurisdiction to upset them (provided all the formalities are complied with).

Consent orders usually arise when parties have been in dispute - have gone some way along the process - doing the mediation first - then starting proceedings because mediation has not been successful - they are filed in the court (Federal Court or Family Court) to finalise the process. Because they are filed in the Court - there is a possibility of the Federal Magistrate or Judge of the Family Court not approving them. There is also a possibility if there is a "material change" in the situation of the parties to overturn those consent orders and start again. Once again there are formalities to be complied with before this happens.
thanks
 
So if you have a B.F.A. it can't be attacked, but it also can't be amended?

But consent orders can be amended, but also disbanded by The Family Court?

Mark
 
yes that is the general gist of the two types of documents - but once again if both parties have agreed to the consent orders - the courts are unlikely to interfere
 
By the sound of this, it's not 100% fool proof dosent matter which way you go.

When you say the courts don't have jurisdiction to upset them (provided all the formalities are complied with). Could you give me a example?
 
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 85A
Ante-nuptial and post-nuptial settlements
(1) The court may, in proceedings under this Act, make such order as the court considers just and equitable with respect to the application, for the benefit of all or any of the parties to, and the children of, the marriage, of the whole or part of property dealt with by ante‑nuptial or post‑nuptial settlements made in relation to the marriage.

(2) In considering what order (if any) should be made under subsection (1), the court shall take into account the matters referred to in subsection 79(4) so far as they are relevant.

(3) A court cannot make an order under this section in respect of matters that are included in a financial agreement.

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 90KA
Validity, enforceability and effect of financial agreements and termination agreements
The question whether a financial agreement or a termination agreement is valid, enforceable or effective is to be determined by the court according to the principles of law and equity that are applicable in determining the validity, enforceability and effect of contracts and purported contracts, and, in proceedings relating to such an agreement, the court:

(a) subject to paragraph (b), has the same powers, may grant the same remedies and must have the same regard to the rights of third parties as the High Court has, may grant and is required to have in proceedings in connection with contracts or purported contracts, being proceedings in which the High Court has original jurisdiction; and

(b) has power to make an order for the payment, by a party to the agreement to another party to the agreement, of interest on an amount payable under the agreement, from the time when the amount became or becomes due and payable, at a rate not exceeding the rate prescribed by the applicable Rules of Court; and

(c) in addition to, or instead of, making an order or orders under paragraph (a) or (b), may order that the agreement, or a specified part of the agreement, be enforced as if it were an order of the court.

HI there if you see the above sections of the family law legislation - the only jurisdiction of the court is to see whether the contract (financial agreement) is enforceable - they do not have the power to regulate the terms and conditions of the financial agreement provided it does comply with the following section:

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 90G
When financial agreements are binding
(1) A financial agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement if, and only if:

(a) the agreement is signed by both parties; and

(b) the agreement contains, in relation to each party to the agreement, a statement to the effect that the party to whom the statement relates has been provided, before the agreement was signed by him or her, as certified in an annexure to the agreement, with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner as to the following matters:

(i) the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party;

(ii) the advantages and disadvantages, at the time that the advice was provided, to the party of making the agreement; and

(c) the annexure to the agreement contains a certificate signed by the person providing the independent legal advice stating that the advice was provided; and

(d) the agreement has not been terminated and has not been set aside by a court; and

(e) after the agreement is signed, the original agreement is given to one of the parties and a copy is given to the other.

Note: For the manner in which the contents of a financial agreement may be proved, see section 48 of the Evidence Act 1995 .

(2) A court may make such orders for the enforcement of a financial agreement that is binding on the parties to the agreement as it thinks necessary.
 
Unfazed,

LOL

Sort of self explanatory isn't it.........:D

GoAnna,

Mrs Nor and I had to do one of those pre marital courses. But that was only 'cause she was Catholic and I wasn't. Hhhmmm.......also had to sign all sorts of paperwork and have interviews as well to ensure the kiddies were brought up as Catholics.........:eek:

As for the assets, I had the panel van and she had the three thousand bucks. By the time the wedding and honeymoon was over with we still had the van, knew where Yepoon (probably still can't spell it though) was.....but had absolutely jack all money.

Must be tough having money and wanting to be in a relationship these days..........:rolleyes:

Windsor,

Maybe you should forget about any sort of serious relationship until you can love your partner more than your money.......:)

ciao

Nor
 
Mrs Nor and I had to do one of those pre marital courses. But that was only 'cause she was Catholic and I wasn't. Hhhmmm.......also had to sign all sorts of paperwork and have interviews as well to ensure the kiddies were brought up as Catholics.........:eek:

Not exactly what I meant! What I was referring to was non religious although many religious people did attend.

My favourite were the couple who wanted to get married so that they could stay out as late as they wanted. They still lived at home with mum and dad hehehehe Anyway I am going to start another thread on this marriage thing to not take this one off track.
 
Raddles you do seem to be of help to Windsor. One other point you might like to clarify is that as I understand it a- couple can undertake a Binding Financial Agreement at any time-- not jut confined to the pre nup stage-. Of course it is best to have one in place before marriage or indeed when entering a de facto relationship. I would not like to be a fly on the wall if one partner in a marriage wanted to introduce a B.F.A post marriage especially if marriage looking shaky- Twould be very ugly!! Hence my advocacy for PRE nup B.F.A They have nothing to do with love,trust etc etc just protecting assets of each party and the assets that each party may have inherited.
 
Hi Miz
you are quite right that you can have a binding financial agreement at various stages of a relationship - as I said I more recently costed a matter which started out to be a separation then split of property - but when the parties got back together - they did enter into a financial agreement to try and stop any further disputes over property down the track should they split again.
You are more likely to see these sorts of agreements when it is a second relationship - I note that I drafted one for my MIL and her new partner (both of whom were widow/widowers with assets from that first relationship they wanted to preserve for the first family) - not sure if they ended up signing them - because they had to be sent off to independent legal practitioners for review, advice etc
thanks
 
Not exactly what I meant! What I was referring to was non religious although many religious people did attend.

Mrs Bear booked us into a counseling session before we found out the the Catholic church we were marrying in provided them as part of the package and attendance was compulsory. As a result we did it twice.

From my experience, the Catholic nun gave us a more thorough and enjoyable session then the other group did. She confirmed what we both already knew, that we're ideal for each other.

Love is a leap of faith, marriage is the affirmation. You put complete trust in your partner and they put their trust in you. Mrs Bear went through years of due diligence on each other but we knew where we where headed almost right from the beginning. If you feel there may be the need to protect your assets in the future, then perhaps your trust isn't 100% and you're not quite ready for it. I simply don't contemplate separating.

I respect Marks position of not wanting to marry, but from my experience I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to be married.
 
Exactly.

Mr "I come from a family with millions in assets" ought to be less of a cheapskate and pay for legal advice.

So what if it costs you $6000.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfazed,

LOL

Sort of self explanatory isn't it.........

GoAnna,

Mrs Nor and I had to do one of those pre marital courses. But that was only 'cause she was Catholic and I wasn't. Hhhmmm.......also had to sign all sorts of paperwork and have interviews as well to ensure the kiddies were brought up as Catholics.........

As for the assets, I had the panel van and she had the three thousand bucks. By the time the wedding and honeymoon was over with we still had the van, knew where Yepoon (probably still can't spell it though) was.....but had absolutely jack all money.

Must be tough having money and wanting to be in a relationship these days..........

Windsor,

Maybe you should forget about any sort of serious relationship until you can love your partner more than your money.......

ciao

Nor

Unfazed & Norwester,

Those remarks are uncalled for, this is a forum where we communicate to others to seek there opinions and advice not comments like you have posted which are unhelpful. Maybe they should close the entire forum down as there are a lot of people asking questions and advice by your comments…

After seeking legal advice today, if you do get a Binding Financial Agreement made you will still need to leave a percentage to the other party wether it be 10% of your total asset’s or 20% as some solicitors’ will not sign the other parties Financial Agreement when they seek there own independent legal advice and there solicitor might argue it is unfair for her even if she wasn’t to bring anything into the marriage.

I have another appointment with the solicitor which we will go into it further and will post back.
 
Back
Top