can you really protect your assets being a male?

[TMNT]

I have been reading this thread all along, especially TMNT's posts, which are getting more and more senseless since the first one.
This post might get banned cos of the personal attack, but I had to say it.
TMNT, with the kind of attitude you have towards women, it will be rather difficult, if not impossible, for you to find a good partner ever!

doubt you will get banned, personal? dont see it as personal

as for my attitude, through the keyboard it might come across as bitter, but its just an attitude of awareness now, im over the bitter part, my friends will say that im just protective of myself and my future

as for me never finding a good partner, maybe, or maybe not, or it might be the same as any other person you'd meet on the street, they say there is one person for everyone, Im not greedy, I dont need that many

Ok, lets extend this to deceased estates.

What if a parent died and left the entire estate to a charity leaving their 15 year old son with nothing?

what about inheritance???

say you got $500k from your parents 6 months before/after getting divorced,

as a woman, she can and probably have no hesitation to argue that during the time they were married, she was contributing to his inheritance,

yet the man can argue that it was income after or at the end, so she is not entitled to it

 

[weg]

Ha ha, I could think of a few on here that might have trouble.

See ya's.

I find amusing the men who think they should have full or 50/50 custody AND think parenting is easy, hence 'not contributing'.

It's obvious the types that have never lifted a finger to care for their kids, or those that think men who do contribute to childcare pussy whipped, couldn't look after children anyway.

 

[warrioress]

This thread is hilarious. Talk about taking no responsibility what so ever- you chose this partner. Decided to have children with her! Your kids want to live with you, but you fob them off and suddenly your ex is good enough to be the main caregiver.

I suppose if she stopped spending money on personal grooming during your marriage, you would have made a comment that she let herself go.

It's threads like these which make me thank my lucky stars I have a top bloke for a husband.

 

[Terry_w]

doubt you will get banned, personal? dont see it as personal

as for my attitude, through the keyboard it might come across as bitter, but its just an attitude of awareness now, im over the bitter part, my friends will say that im just protective of myself and my future

as for me never finding a good partner, maybe, or maybe not, or it might be the same as any other person you'd meet on the street, they say there is one person for everyone, Im not greedy, I dont need that many



what about inheritance???

say you got $500k from your parents 6 months before/after getting divorced,

as a woman, she can and probably have no hesitation to argue that during the time they were married, she was contributing to his inheritance,

yet the man can argue that it was income after or at the end, so she is not entitled to it

Yes, there are many cases on this, although I haven't looked into it thoroughly. It seems the inheritance can be deemed to be an asset of the marriage or a financial resource of the party receiving it. Getting your parents etc to leave the inheritantance to a testamentary trust. This way the beneficiary may not actually receive and money and there is less chance that the money can be considered assets of the marriage.

Also if receiving money from a parent you should always consider if it is a gift or a loan. Get loan agreements drawn up, and signed by the spouse too. The loan could be interest free but repayable on demand. (make provision in the will too). this way if you do divorce the money is repayable to the parent.

 

[redwing]

Marriage is betting someone half your possessions that you'll love them forever

 

[Bigtone]

Which sections of the act are you referring to?

the application

 

[Bigtone]

Got any cases that have that outcome?

Or is it just a case of Chinese Whispers that happened to a friend of a friend of a friend of a cousin of yours?

i see it day in day out

latest one actually tried for 100% because hubby's mum was not well and might die soon and he would get an inheritance

her lawyer actually got a court order so his mum had to provide a medical report and provide her financial position and a copy of her will.

there is no depths the lawyers won't delve to, lets face it it is not their money they r playing with, the more avenues/angles they try the higher their fees.

she bought not not a cent into the relationship, he bought over $1m, never worked a day in her life, cleaner, dog walker, ironer, personal trainer, pool man, Gardner, 4 overseas holidays a year , she got 75% which was really 90% after he had to pay both sets of legal fees

fair as

 

[Terry_w]

the application

In that case I must agree with you. The application of the law is sometimes unfair, or maybe everytime unfair. There will always be a winner and a loser.

 

[Terry_w]

i see it day in day out

latest one actually tried for 100% because hubby's mum was not well and might die soon and he would get an inheritance

her lawyer actually got a court order so his mum had to provide a medical report and provide her financial position and a copy of her will.

there is no depths the lawyers won't delve to, lets face it it is not their money they r playing with, the more avenues/angles they try the higher their fees.

she bought not not a cent into the relationship, he bought over $1m, never worked a day in her life, cleaner, dog walker, ironer, personal trainer, pool man, Gardner, 4 overseas holidays a year , she got 75% which was really 90% after he had to pay both sets of legal fees

fair as

Would love to read this case. What is the reference or the names of the parties?

 

[TMNT]

Yes, there are many cases on this, although I haven't looked into it thoroughly. It seems the inheritance can be deemed to be an asset of the marriage or a financial resource of the party receiving it. Getting your parents etc to leave the inheritantance to a testamentary trust. This way the beneficiary may not actually receive and money and there is less chance that the money can be considered assets of the marriage.

Also if receiving money from a parent you should always consider if it is a gift or a loan. Get loan agreements drawn up, and signed by the spouse too. The loan could be interest free but repayable on demand. (make provision in the will too). this way if you do divorce the money is repayable to the parent.

what about if trusts are not involved, and its just come through through the sale of dead parents house for example? surely this would be common for people in the 50/60s with only a PPOR as an asset,

what would happen if you were the only child or one of two children,

and 1 month before the divorce, you get $500k from the sale or what happens if you get $500k 1 month before you divorce from parents, and another $500 k a month after the divorce from an uncle for example?

how are inhertances classified? It wouldnt surprised me if they are all lumped into the asset pool given the riidculous laws that you can lose 50%+ on an asset that was brought into the marriage , plus superannuation is also not safe!

 

[Terry_w]

what about if trusts are not involved, and its just come through through the sale of dead parents house for example? surely this would be common for people in the 50/60s with only a PPOR as an asset,

what would happen if you were the only child or one of two children,

and 1 month before the divorce, you get $500k from the sale or what happens if you get $500k 1 month before you divorce from parents, and another $500 k a month after the divorce from an uncle for example?

how are inhertances classified? It wouldnt surprised me if they are all lumped into the asset pool given the riidculous laws that you can lose 50%+ on an asset that was brought into the marriage , plus superannuation is also not safe!

Yes it would be taken into account. How it is taken into account will depend on a few things such as
when it was received
who was the beneficiary
the amount
etc etc

Something received one month before the relationship breakdown would be treated differently than something received 10 years before the split.

 

[Ideo]

Would love to read this case. What is the reference or the names of the parties?

Indeed. Same here.

I get a feeling it won't be revealed however. Just another one of those fabulous fantasies about how bad women are

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Some people here have been questioning as to why men feel angry or upset after they have been worked over by their ex-wives and/or the system, so I thought I would post up some real life examples for people to consider, since a number of people have asked for them.

Court orders father to have no contact with his 5 year old daughter after the mother repeatedly violates court visitation orders, claiming it is 'in the best interests of the child'.

Note that this finding was made whilst John Howard's shared parenting legislation was still in effect (not that it actually made any difference), however the misandrist Federal Labor Govt. has since repealed the legislation, making it very clear where they stand on the rights of fathers to have access to their children.

Remember when you go to vote in September everyone - a vote for Labor is a vote against men.

Plenty of articles here to peruse. There are also lots of other sections to peep under 'Categories'.

Personally, I'm tired of people (both men and women) undermining men's concerns, anger and issues as not being relevant, while continually pushing womens' issues. Men and women wanting to stand up and speak for men have the right to be heard and not pushed aside by people saying 'Yes, but what about teh womenz?' or 'We will deal with men's issues once women's issues have been dealt with'.

As someone who has been speaking up for men and men's issues for about 7 years now, I'm very much used to the various insults and insinuations pointed in my direction by all manner of folks. In fact, it has now gotten to the stage where, if it doesn't happen, I ask myself 'am I being vocal enough?' With that, I present to you a great article on what the author calls cheerful misogyny. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did and appreciate the pinpoint accuracy of the statements made therein.

One thing that is very pleasing to me is that I (and others have also mentioned this) have noticed a rather sharp increase in the number of women coming forward to vocalise their concerns for men's issues, particularly in the last 12 months or so. Hopefully one day, sooner rather than later, we as a society will begin having a serious discourse on furthering men's issues without tacking women's issues on simply to get heard.

 

[Ideo]

Have you got anything from a non-biased site?

I don't go to PETA looking for an objective discussion about how safe and careful the meat industry is.

 

[Terry_w]

Court orders father to have no contact with his 5 year old daughter after the mother repeatedly violates court visitation orders, claiming it is 'in the best interests of the child'.

This is a reference to a newspaper article. These usually sensationalise stories and leave important bits out.

Best to link to the full judgment,
Summerby & Cadogen [2011] FamCAFC 205 (20 October 2011)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/s...?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Summerby&nocontext=1

 

[Terry_w]

This is a reference to a newspaper article. These usually sensationalise stories and leave important bits out.

Best to link to the full judgment,
Summerby & Cadogen [2011] FamCAFC 205 (20 October 2011)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/s...?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Summerby&nocontext=1

And because that case was an appeal, the original case
Summerby & Cadogen [2010] FMCAfam 109 (12 February 2010)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCAfam/2010/109.html

 

[Ideo]

And because that case was an appeal, the original case
Summerby & Cadogen [2010] FMCAfam 109 (12 February 2010)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCAfam/2010/109.html

Thanks for posting actual factual information rather than emotive rubbish.

I'll look over this in the morning.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

This is a reference to a newspaper article. These usually sensationalise stories and leave important bits out.

Best to link to the full judgment,
Summerby & Cadogen [2011] FamCAFC 205 (20 October 2011)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/s...?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Summerby&nocontext=1

So in summary:

- Both parents make what appear to be unsubstantiated claims against the other, effectively using the child as a weapon against each other. So we have established here that both parents can fairly be referred to as 'fat sacks of crap'.

- Despite this, the court orders the mother custody, with the father to be granted access to visitation with the child, which the mother violates repeatedly.

- Mother repeatedly violates court ordered visitation, with the court deciding the father is to have no access to his child until such time as she turns 18, by which time she will almost certainly have had her mind well and truly poisoned against him, virtually to the point of no return.

Conclusion: women have been given licence to violate court orders (in Queensland, at least) with impunity.

 

[geoffw]

That case was not straight forward. Allegations of sexual abuse were made against the father and against the mother's partner. Those allegations were found to be vexatious but went to show how much antipathy. Either party was prepared to go to any length to stop the other party having access to the child. The judge found that with this level of antipathy co parenting was not possible, so he had to determine which one parent could have custody- there would have been too much emotional abuse of the child otherwise.

The mother was ordered to pay the costs of both parties. Those costs would have been considerable.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Allegations of sexual abuse were made against the father and against the mother's partner. Those allegations were found to be vexatious but went to show how much antipathy. Either party was prepared to go to any length to stop the other party having access to the child.

That's right. This is what I was referring to in the first point of the previous post.

The judge found that with this level of antipathy co parenting was not possible, so he had to determine which one parent could have custody- there would have been too much emotional abuse of the child otherwise.

This is a cop out on behalf of the court. Although it is not the best of situations, the child has a right of access to BOTH parents, where no actual abuse by either party has been proven. For the court to say 'Oh well, you're both jerks, but we're going to give custody to mum. Dad - you can't see your daughter until she turns 18. Thanks for comin'.' is a clear indication of the Family Court favouring women over men and rewarding the mother for violating court orders and using the child as a weapon.

The mother was ordered to pay the costs of both parties. Those costs would have been considerable.

The cost to the father in losing all contact with his daughter makes the financial cost to the mother virtually insignificant in comparison.