Trusts to protect real estate in case of divorce

wylie said:
I'd be curious to know if you share my view,
Click to expand...

I personally think the family laws here are some of the fairest pieces of legislation in the country - I can't remember the last time I read a case and thought that the outcome was unfair.

Obviously there might be some bias since I work as a family lawyer, but in some of my other practice areas I'm frank in calling out any unfairness (including residential tenancy law).

The only thing I can think of that bugs me a little with the laws are the difficulties in implementing and enforcing a binding financial agreement.
 
Could always get Pinkboy to pimp you out... really it should be "pimp boy" now... He seems to try and be local match maker! ;) Just remember PB i get a cut back! ;)


anyhow...

I like Steve's strategy from a parent point of view. However why not put your name on the property aswell, aka purchase the propery in both the parent name and child name? It means on death that the property will then fall to the other... and possibly be able to put this into a testamonary trust? Not sure if it is possible like this.

You may get more asset protection this way, because then the property is then 50% owned by the parent, so possibly the partner could only get half of the 50%, because its more transparent where the cash came from for the purchase?

Just thought i would throw this idea out there...
 
Having come through this from the point of view of the child of a marriage like this - if you can't trust someone with this, then why are you trusting them with your kids, your health, and living in the same home? Trust in a person is the basis of a good relationship. I've had to sort out complicated trust structures that are decades out of date (given poor drafting and that laws around trusts change), wills, 'loans' from grandparents that probably weren't real loans ... it's destroyed pretty much all of my goodwill for family. Look at the Rinehart mess. I'd say it's not worth it unless you can also put aside the money to pay for lawyers and accountants to maintain these structures indefinitely - and in my parents experience that much could be seven figures and up, eating up all your capital.
 
I know of parents who put their home and business in the name of their son so they could get the pension. Son got killed and dil threw the line at them on the way out of the funeral "well kids, we are rich now!" so be careful.
When my partner and I got together as a (very) mature age couple, we personally agreed to keep what we had before that date as ours, and anything we made after that date to be shared. No wills yet, and I really resent that government bodies can declare our assets are mutual even if we are not married. I dont expect any trouble (in the event of one of our deaths) from immediate kids, but always worry more about the spouses of our children and what they would claim.
 
fernfurn said:
I know of parents who put their home and business in the name of their son so they could get the pension. Son got killed and dil threw the line at them on the way out of the funeral "well kids, we are rich now!" so be careful.
When my partner and I got together as a (very) mature age couple, we personally agreed to keep what we had before that date as ours, and anything we made after that date to be shared. No wills yet, and I really resent that government bodies can declare our assets are mutual even if we are not married.

Then get straight onto it... now!

I dont expect any trouble (in the event of one of our deaths) from immediate kids, but always worry more about the spouses of our children and what they would claim.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. And don't breathe easy our immediate kids either :eek:
 
fernfurn said:
No wills yet, and I really resent that government bodies can declare our assets are mutual even if we are not married. I dont expect any trouble (in the event of one of our deaths) from immediate kids, but always worry more about the spouses of our children and what they would claim.
Click to expand...

It is really amazing how death of a loved one and the prospects of getting some money can bring out the best in people. More amazing is how they justify things and think they have a 'right' to get xxx.

If you haven't got a will then you should read the intestacy rules and see how your things would be divided up - especially if you have children from a previous relationship.
 
Perhaps OP needs to be prudent with how much information he reveals when meeting a potential love interest. Its not exactly good for him to be bragging to a new girlfriend how many houses he has when he initially starts a new relationship. Try to find a girl who likes you for who you are and not your money (assets). Or only tell her about the PPOR to start with.

If OP is already thinking about divorce and its consequences before being married maybe he is not the type of person who is marriage material. He may end up being very rich in his old age but with no real love. Thailand could be a place you end up living in the future...
 
donkey said:
If OP is already thinking about divorce and its consequences before being married maybe he is not the type of person who is marriage material. He may end up being very rich in his old age but with no real love. Thailand could be a place you end up living in the future...
Click to expand...

I think its a pretty big stretch to say that people who are mindful of the financial consequences of separation are somehow not 100% committed to a marriage or de facto relationship.

Conversely its like saying being ignorant of your potential financial liability in that event is somehow more noble or dedicated to "love" and the relationship.

I don't know why people keep perpetuating that mindset.
 
i'm hoping Terry or Thatbum or someone who really knows can reply re

telling me more about partners or people we date and are close to for many years being able to one day claim against us even if we didnt marry or live with them?


Quote:
Originally Posted by wylie View Post
They do, and that is what is being said here. And I believe now there doesn't have to be cohabitation for someone to claim being defacto?
Yes. You could be a defacto and not necessarily have lived together.

Under the Succession Act you can even have a wife/husband and a defacto at the same time. eg. You were married but having an affair - you die without a will then under the intestacy laws in NSW both of your spouses would share you estate.

Not sure about the Family Law Act.
 
jasonp3 said:
i'm hoping Terry or Thatbum or someone who really knows can reply re

telling me more about partners or people we date and are close to for many years being able to one day claim against us even if we didnt marry or live with them?


Quote:
Originally Posted by wylie View Post
They do, and that is what is being said here. And I believe now there doesn't have to be cohabitation for someone to claim being defacto?
Yes. You could be a defacto and not necessarily have lived together.

Under the Succession Act you can even have a wife/husband and a defacto at the same time. eg. You were married but having an affair - you die without a will then under the intestacy laws in NSW both of your spouses would share you estate.

Not sure about the Family Law Act.
Click to expand...

There was a well known billionaire that died a few years ago. He had a mistress as well as a wife. The mistress sued the estate - can't remember the outcome now as there were a few appeals.

there are several ways a person can get your assets:
1. Family Law act definition of defacto, generally requires 1 year living in a relationship - may not mean living in the same house. There may even be no sex.

2. Succession act - in NSW you can have 2 or more spouses at the same time for succession.

Family provision of the succession act also means a challenge could be mounted by a 'mistress' or a 'materess' (a male mistress). Whether homo or heterosexual is the same for the most part.

3. Estoppel.
If as part of your mating ritual you whisper into your partners ear "I will give you smith street" then this could be a binding promise and if th partner relies on it to their detriment then you may have to honour it in death - or in life too.
 
Terry_w said:
There was a well known billionaire that died a few years ago. He had a mistress as well as a wife. The mistress sued the estate - can't remember the outcome now as there were a few appeals.
Click to expand...
Shari-Lea Hitchcock against the estate of Richard Pratt. I think it's still ongoing.
 
This is a serious thought, not taking the mickey.

I sometimes wonder why, when I hear/read about cases like this why people who obviously have the money to afford it, don't just go to hookers if they want to skip out on their husband/wife.

What's the point of having someone on the side when the risks are so high if you can afford anonymous 'relations' pretty much any time you want?
 
Mr. Fabulous said:
This is a serious thought, not taking the mickey.

I sometimes wonder why, when I hear/read about cases like this why people who obviously have the money to afford it, don't just go to hookers if they want to skip out on their husband/wife.

What's the point of having someone on the side when the risks are so high if you can afford anonymous 'relations' pretty much any time you want?
Click to expand...

Its the cuddle factor. Like an old friend of mine says "A man needs a cuddle"
 
im only young but working in the FIFO game for the last three years i have heard many middle aged mans life story. i could write a book on some of the stories i have heard about there wife screwing them over. BE VERY CAREFUL. Im not being negative but worry is now instilled in me for how i will deal with the situation when it comes along. i dont agree with the system at all. why are the women favoured?

i have a friend who was with a chick for 2 years they where de facto. He bought a house paid for everything and looked after her then they break up and now she sends him a letter from a lawyer saying she got nothing out of it and wants money. WTF how does that work.
 
donkey said:
Perhaps OP needs to be prudent with how much information he reveals when meeting a potential love interest. Its not exactly good for him to be bragging to a new girlfriend how many houses he has when he initially starts a new relationship. Try to find a girl who likes you for who you are and not your money (assets). Or only tell her about the PPOR to start with.

If OP is already thinking about divorce and its consequences before being married maybe he is not the type of person who is marriage material. He may end up being very rich in his old age but with no real love. Thailand could be a place you end up living in the future...
Click to expand...

hahaha plenty of love over there!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Asset Protection in terms of divorce
Replies
12
Views
4K
ozmale42
O
M
Converting PPOR to Trust psot divorce question
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
Terry_w
Terry_w
E
Sibling Joint Owned During a Divorce
Replies
10
Views
2K
Paul@PFI
Paul@PFI
B
Australian marry a Thai lady - asset protection?
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
29K
Terry_w
Terry_w
J
Structure of Properties when divorcing?
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
7K
property_girl
P
Back
Top