Can She Take Half of My Assets?

Windows7forever on 28/11/2016 - 13:39
Last edited 29/11/2016 - 05:21
  • I have been with my girlfriend for 2 years and we are both in out late twenties.
  • She does not currently have any savings or assets as she is a poor student but she contributes financially where she can and is actively looking for work.
  • We currently live together and pay rent
  • I am currently working full time and own my house(which is solely in my name) which is currently being tenanted out, but we would like to move into it together within the next 6 months
  • There is a small mortgage on the house but majority of it has been paid off by myself - through scrimping, saving and hard work
  • We do plan on getting married and having children eventually down the track
  • She is a beautiful humble woman and not some gold digging money lover

What are the implications if we were to break up our relationship or things didn't work out down the track?

Can she potentially take half of the house even if we aren't married?

The reason I ask is because I have worked hard for everything and although I trust her and love her, I've heard horror stories of guys losing the lot because of bad relationships and poor financial/legal advice. Even as per the last point, people can change over time and I don't want to get screwed over. I wouldn't bother asking but she is not bringing anything to the table, financially speaking, so I guess I need some re-assurance.

Financial

Comments

  • AceIsMe on 29/11/2016 - 09:22
    +1

    If it really comes down to it, you better call Saul.

  • Kempe on 29/11/2016 - 09:29
    +3

    She can take more than half the house she can take half of everything including value of cars and furnishings then will turn her attention on your Super.
    And she will get custody of any children
    Best to flip them every 6 months to be sure

    • chumlee on 29/11/2016 - 09:31

      Really?? can you please show me the legislation that states that??

    • shaybisc on 29/11/2016 - 11:15

      They certainly do get a share of your Super. I don't know how it works. Do they get a 50/50 split of your Super at your retirement, 35 years after the divorce? That would be a little unfair.

      I'm none the wiser after reading this.

      http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family…

      • mouseketeer on 29/11/2016 - 12:16
        +1

        Super is taken into account in the pool of assets. So say partner 1 has $100k super, partner 2 has $60k super and equity in their house is $340k. Total asset pool (I'm being simplistic here, obviously there'd be other things to take into account) = $500k. If it gets split down the middle, each partner is entitled to $250k, meaning partner 1 gets $150k worth of house, partner 2 gets $190k worth of house. So super doesn't get touched, just counted in the equation. It also makes it look like partner 2 (lower-earning partner, generally the female but not always) gets "more" because they're getting the greater portion of available assets.

  • keyman on 29/11/2016 - 09:31
    +2

    Hi OP, I was in EXACTLY the same situation as you almost 2 years ago. I had a stable full time job whilst she was still studying and earning pittance (still is now as she's graduating next month). I wanted to buy a house and live together but was paranoid of all the horror stories out there of people getting screwed over due to bad breakups/crazy-ex. At that time, she was already an additional card holder of one of my credit accounts as I taught her how credit can be a smarter financial option for her situation (Use the card for all the required purchases whilst money sits in bank account earning interest until the card needs to be paid off). She never abused the card, I trusted her completely and I knew the type of person she was (we've been together 3 years as the time and she was a card holder for 2).

    But like you, I was contemplating how to approach the house situation as every single penny I earnt would be going into the house. Her contribution would've been maybe 2% of the deposit. I talked to her about my insecurities and that maybe we should get a pre-nup. She was offended at the thought as she's the type to live in fantasy land where love and romance will get you through everything. But eventually she agreed to it as she understood where I was coming from.

    Fast forward to today, I bought the house and have been living with her for the past 1.5 years. We never ended up getting a pre-nup/contract drawn up because in the end I went with my gut. As corny as it sounds, love did triumph for us. I knew that even though she didn't have or earn much, she would sacrifice everything she had for me. Even before the house, even though I would spend more on her at the end of the day I would still have money saving up and I could still support myself if we broke up but for her, almost all her earnings would be going towards us.

    Life is a bit of a gamble and sure there are horror stories out there but there are also success stories as evidenced in this thread. Today, I am now engaged (literally 1 week ago!) and couldn't be happier :)

    However you choose to proceed, I wish you and your girlfriend the best of luck for the future and may there be many happy times to come :)

    EDIT - https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/278887#comment-4222230 @carnyturbo makes a great point
    Everyone's relationship is different but my fiancee has been my rock throughout. Even though I would've managed with the finances without her, she contributes so much in other ways and I'm glad she was with me the whole way. I'm also happy we never had to pay for a money grubbing lawyer to write something up that probably wouldn't be 100% enforceable anyway as another money grubbing lawyer would find his/her way around it.

    • Windows7forever on 30/11/2016 - 04:30

      I'm very happy to hear things are working out well for you.

  • cyrax83 on 29/11/2016 - 10:22
    -1

    Disappointing the first thing people think of is a pre-nup! Mate suck it up and go for it. This isn't a financial transaction, and if you are treating it like one maybe she's not the one for you. From the sounds of it, you shouldn't be getting married and just hire a maid from overseas at a cheap daily rate

  • Phoebus on 29/11/2016 - 10:26

    The notion that a spouse is automatically entitled to 50% of assets is a common misconception. As a general rule she'd be entitled to 50% of the assets the you both acquired together since living together. What you brought to the relationship before that is yours. Gets a bit more complicated after your have kids together

    • Scab on 29/11/2016 - 10:55
      +1

      As a general rule she'd be entitled to 50% of the assets the you both acquired together since living together. What you brought to the relationship before that is yours.

      Nope, at least in NSW.

      They can even take super which was accrued years before the relationship.

      • Phoebus on 29/11/2016 - 12:44

        Um, no they can't. Not unless you have a pathetic lawyer. She'd only be entitled to half the super you accumulated since your relationship started.

  • Spending2Much on 29/11/2016 - 10:33
    +5

    I lost house, investment properties, shares and substantial savings in my divorce, I've moved on but the bitterness of losing everything I worked hard for, in my previous career and life before her, the depression and financial stress and going backward. No kids, but my financial contribution to the relationship basically eroded and i lost Alot! That hurt. My GF now,(and her child) who's moving in, will be signing a pre nup. She's bankrupt and has nothing of value, Not like I don't love her, of course I do, although she has made comments when talking about moving in, that if it doesn't work out, she'll just leave and I keep everything, in reality, once bitten…..
    I never thought my wife would leave me for her best friends husband, I thought we'd die old together.
    All I'm doing now is protecting myself and my financial situation.
    Seek professional legal advice. It's worth it.

    • Scab on 29/11/2016 - 10:56

      will be signing a pre nup.

      That won't protect you, a person can argue against a pre nup they signed.

      • Spending2Much on 29/11/2016 - 11:07
        +1

        I'll be taking my own advice…..last line above.
        "Seek professional legal advice"

    • poppit88 on 29/11/2016 - 23:02
      -1

      Pre-nups can be binding. You need a good solicitor though and they need to be done properly.

      • harkoliar on 30/11/2016 - 17:20

        Can over overturned by a judge who deems it too unfairly.

        I would do prenup but you have to be upfront about it to your partner

    • mbck on 30/11/2016 - 13:11
      +1

      Sheez, sorry to hear mate. Hope you're doing much better.

  • isidore12 on 29/11/2016 - 10:33

    You need to take an appointment with a lawyer. The subject is too sensitive to be dealt with advises from a forum.

    Law may not that simple. She didn't contribute in any expense (or almost none). Also to get half of anything she will have to go to court, that's about $70k expenses. A lot of money for someone doesn't seem to have any.

    If I recall properly whatever assets or debts you have before being married is not shared among spouses. We had that issue with a mortgage I contracted before I met my wife.

    Anyway, get a professional advise!

    PS: I think pre-nup is fine if there is an unbalance of wealth in a couple. You may want to remove the money out of the equation when you get married.

  • Geoff-bargain on 29/11/2016 - 11:07
    +5

    Thought I'd add my 2c.
    I'm recently divorced. I think I was very lucky that my ex had a property, otherwise I would have lost a lot. She also had the potential to earn far more than me but decided she didn't want to work once we were living together.
    When we broke up she tried to get me to pay her for items that I had purchased. I had also paid for a renovation on her apartment as we lived in it together for a short time. She wanted me to walk away without her repaying me for it.
    Only once I lawyered up was i able to get her to be fair. First she was telling me she would do what the law says. Then after speaking to a lawyer and realising that I could be entitled too far more she then switched from saying legal to saying she would do what's right (for her).
    I feel I did the right thing in that I worked out what she needed to repay me for and didn't claim more even though my lawyer said I could. I know she would not have done this if roles were reversed.
    She lived in the house we bought together but with my money (she rented out her apartment) for six months while we settled everything. Then refused to pay and of the house bills when she moved out.

    I don't think I will ever live with another partner as it's too risky for me. You can have a good relationship and still keep separate houses. I just don't want to lose my house ever again. I was lucky it was only 6 months this time. But lesson learnt.

    • Spending2Much on 29/11/2016 - 11:12

      I feel your pain. I saw a side of my ex wife that horrified me and disgusted me….I can't believe I married this woman who did and said the things she did.

      • JetLi on 29/11/2016 - 11:23
        +2

        It's crazy how one minute someone can be the "love of your life/soul partner" and next minute, be your worst enemy. Unfortunately people change, not always for the better.

        • Geoff-bargain on 29/11/2016 - 15:10

          I know what you're saying. Unfortunately for me the signs were pretty clear before we got married. I read a story in the paper of a girl who called off her wedding and thought I wish I had had the guts to do that.

      • banzini on 29/11/2016 - 12:05

        least you got out now and not later

        • Geoff-bargain on 29/11/2016 - 15:07

          Yep, worst time of my life with her, so much better now. And a lot more cautious now too. Although I do think myself lucky as it could have been much worse. I also consider myself lucky because all of my previous relationships have been pretty good, even though they ended they were nothing like this one and I'm still friends with some of them.

  • JetLi on 29/11/2016 - 11:11
    +1

    Once kids are involved, there's a real possible double whammy, lose your money and your kids…

  • wchau on 29/11/2016 - 11:12

    Looking at divorce rates - OP has every right to question it. He has obviously heard the phrase "Don't get mad get EVEN".
    In fairy tale land everyone lives happily every after.. I'm afraid not all stories end like that and 2 years is really not that long to know its is going to last forever.
    Who knows what will happen.

    Maybe one day she may become the sole breadwinner because life throws some oddities at you unexpectedly what then ?

    My thoughts - love her with everything and if it wasn't meant to be then it wasn't meant to be. All or nothing.. .. or half. :)

  • bset on 29/11/2016 - 11:49
    +3

    After reading the OPs comments I kinda feel sorry for the girl. I mean, you should be having this discussion with her - not us. after all, you're getting opinions from people you don't know, who have no idea about the context of your relationship. If your partner loves you then she will understand your insecurity even if it hurts her a little to think you don't trust her. do the right thing and talk to her instead. all we will do is fill you with a thousand different ideas and that will cause more anxiety.

    self-destructive behaviour is pretty op.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2016 - 12:00
    +3

    A compelling lesson about divorce is a large block of land I bought from my now neighbour. He inherited land four times the size, divorced twice, losing half each time. He now has a quarter. It's like a pie chart.

  • banzini on 29/11/2016 - 12:01

    i'm looking for a sugar mama then I am going to steal her $hit in 2 years and 1 day.
    fair yah?

  • WT on 29/11/2016 - 12:04

    Not a lawyer, but something to ask is:

    Switching your property to a trust or pty ltd (company name). You need to ask "how do I protect my existing assets without a prenup". Im getting the vibe you dont want to ask for a prenup.

    If you break up now, and she has zero financial contribution a competent solicitor will base that as your defense if she comes after it

    If you want to move in and do the whole kids thing, it gets complicated. Even if you paid for most of it before married etc. Kids are the trump card.

  • LKJ899 on 29/11/2016 - 12:26

    this might be a bit off topic, what about savings? When de-facto couple break up, are they entitled to take the money YOU saved?

    • Skramit on 29/11/2016 - 12:30

      Yes

  • Venom on 29/11/2016 - 12:44
    +1

    Bikies

  • la1970 on 29/11/2016 - 12:58

    My advice seek advice from a lawyer, but in saying that the legal system is not guaranteed it depends on the lawyer you hire the judge on the day. But I myself have heard many horror stories some women take the men to cleaners and then some worse if you have kids.( I am a woman so its not a personal attack on women)I have been with my husband 30 years and I did sign a prenup the idea never scared me because I was in for love not money , not that he had much but his fathers property was in his name and he wanted to make sure he was safe. Life is complicated and if you want to guarantee your money and assets you should have contacted a lawyer 2 years ago . Your comment previous that no one can prove the you have been in the relationship for that length of time is a little scary you are already willing to lie for money . Maybe she is better off without you and your money , because its obvious that you have your priorities.

  • partymix on 29/11/2016 - 13:16
    +1

    Does anyone know if this situation applies to debt as well? Eg can they offload half their debt onto you? Credit card, income tax etc?

    • poppit88 on 29/11/2016 - 23:09

      Again the short answer is yes. I think you are both severally liable for each others debt when married. Which is why you see notices in newspapers saying "On such and such a date 2016, I am not longer responsible for debts incurred by Mr Muffet or Ms Muffet at their last known address of 1 Drizzle lane, Muffet Land.

    • Wally on 30/11/2016 - 16:41

      It's called an STD

      Sexually Transmitted Debt!

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 29/11/2016 - 13:29
    +2

    Rule 1. Never ever move in with a significant other if they don't have a job.

    • AncientWisdom on 29/11/2016 - 19:02
      +1

      The fact they have a job when they move in doesn't mean they'll keep it when supported to do otherwise ;-)

  • Jammar on 29/11/2016 - 13:52

    Half is understated she can take more providing there is prove that she takes the longer,harder effort to contribute her share to the financial.

  • OzBozo on 29/11/2016 - 14:05
    -2

    Good thing you made this post for advice, because once she reads it, she is definitely going to leave your shallow ass

  • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2016 - 14:14

    There is a funny billion dollar case in the US where Tim Blixseth organised all his bad, debt ridden assets together in his divorce and offloaded all loan responsibilities associated to his divorcing wife. It didn't quite come off, but it was close. He effectively tried to divorce a $400 million dollar loan and the wife and her lawyers were stupid enough to accept it. Other creditors caught up with him, but the ex-wife didn't.

  • branners on 29/11/2016 - 14:21
    +2

    This is a tricky situation and it is rare that any two cases are exactly the same.
    I second the suggestion to get legal advice. Trust and love are all well and good but if a significant proportion of your financial security is tied up in property and there is a chance that half that (or more) could be taken from you, legal advice is just what you need.
    I offer this for what it is worth, as a cautionary tale…
    I have a mate whose marriage ended after 20 years. He was nearly wiped out; even though his wife did not work for much of the time they were together, what counted was how she would support herself after they broke up, at which time she was only working part time. Long story short, she ended up in the 3BR house, with a BMW in the driveway and a boyfriend (which was the cause of the breakup) and my mate ended up in a 1BR flat, driving a $500 Barina. It took him years to get back on his feet — and that was a relatively civil divorce.
    A few years later his son was talking about letting his GF move in to his unit, which he had bought himself and had been paying off for a couple of years. So dad sent him to a lawyer and the advice he received was something like;
    Sign an ownership agreement. List every single asset you both have separately, no matter how small, and revisit it every six months.
    Have a formal rental agreement. Make sure that the GF pays her way and make it clear she is not buying equity, she is paying rent.
    Make sure she has, if not her own room per se, then her own space.
    Split bills, and document the payments and [monthly] reconcilliations.
    And finally, and remember this is coming from a lawyer…
    Make it clear that this was not a monogamous relationship and that both parties were free to see/sleep with other people which, said the legal eagle (who was a family law specialist) would help if the fan got splattered. He (the lawyer) even suggested that the odd same-sex hook-up — preferably with some documented proof — would be useful if things hit the skids.
    I have not heard of that one before, and like I said, I am not suggesting that this is good practice. But it sure can get tricky out there…

    • Lunarboogie on 29/11/2016 - 18:02
      +1

      I've heard it all know, thanks the third hand legal advice….

  • clayb123 on 29/11/2016 - 14:40

    You could talk to a lawyer about a binding financial agreement. It's Australia's form of a pre-nup and just sets out an agreement that what's yours is yours and vice versa (or any other agreement that you choose to make). As mentioned, the Family Law rules are very much based on a whole range of circumstances and you probably won't find correct advice here based on the information you've provided. A solicitor will ask you the questions that will give them the information they need to more accurately provide you with tailored advice.

  • Herbert1955 on 29/11/2016 - 14:43
    +1

    Can I please suggest that you leave that house alone. Leave it rented - it is yours - don't even talk about it. Buy another house together and pay mortgage everything together. I had a friend who bought a house and had it fully paid for. The girlfriend moved in. They did eventually get married (she was a gold digger). They had 2 little girls. Every time they talked, it was always about HIS house. Never their house. It actually broke up their marriage. She did have an affair (it was 5 years into their marriage). She took him to the cleaners. Took more than 1\2 the house. It was a beautiful house and he got so little. He can't afford to buy again so he's now renting in his 50s.

    • banzini on 29/11/2016 - 14:54

      lol jumps in another bloke's bed and then takes the original bloke to the cleaners.
      heaps fair

    • MeesusEff on 29/11/2016 - 15:02

      i think there should be a general rule : if you cheat, you get zzzzzip! unless the original partner was an abuser.

      i wonder who the deciding person is that would allow a cheater to get half or more, they need a knock on their head to wake them up.

      • Windows7forever on 30/11/2016 - 04:15

        A healthy dose of moral justice is more of what we need in our sinful society.

  • Herbert1955 on 29/11/2016 - 14:51

    Ps. Lawyers cost a fortune. Whenever couples breakup, the only people who win out financially are the lawyers so be very careful. Just make sure that you go into these exercises as equals then if it goes pearshaped which more than 50% of relationships end up, that you then take your 50% in the split

  • cyrax83 on 29/11/2016 - 14:55
    +2

    OP should just go for a rub and tug. $50 a day. Much cheaper. Asian lady won't take your assets

    • Skramit on 29/11/2016 - 15:36
      +2

      Any discount codes?

      • cyrax83 on 29/11/2016 - 16:41

        Tightarse is on the case

        • Skramit on 29/11/2016 - 16:43

          Not sure I want to click on the referral link.

    • devilbabies on 29/11/2016 - 17:49

      50 dollar too beaucoup. 5 dollars is all my mom allows me to spend.

  • paloverde88 on 29/11/2016 - 16:50

    wonder if that applies to same sex relationship couples or the law is biased only to straight couples.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2016 - 17:13
      +1

      Your adaptability is admirable!

    • clayb123 on 29/11/2016 - 17:21

      Family Law Act recognises same sex relationships for purposes of property disputes

  • shamid202 on 29/11/2016 - 17:17

    im married with my wife for 9years now and I didnt have anything back then i was a normal student as she is now.

    In the whole process of our life she did almost like 2-3% of the whole income and I did the rest. good saving, a house, two cars.

    I have had an argue with my wife like about 6months ago which didnt affect our marriage even a bit. but when i thought about divorce and if im going to give half to her even though she didnt work for it, I was more than happy to give her half as we made everything together in these years. she couldnt finish her studies without my support as well.

    I love her and she loves me. in my case We made a life from beggining together so we both deserve half but in your case at least the house must be separate.

    • poppit88 on 29/11/2016 - 23:17

      Your case is slightly different. What has been built between you both has been built together even though you have both ebbed and flowed at different rates to each other through out the relationship.

      My biff is coming into a relationship where one party owns say $500k of assets that they've worked their backside of for and the other party brings a lifetime of receipts from years of frivolous spending, but thinks they are entitled to half of your Blueberry pie in the event of a separation! Seriously…. WT??

      • shamid202 on 29/11/2016 - 23:44

        it is ridiculous. it shouldnt be like that really anything before marriage must not get count in the court

  • zolinger on 29/11/2016 - 17:30

    Im getting a feeling from this thread that a) I should not get married b) Have a solid, ironclad prenup c) dont get married in Australia but in Dubai, unless you're satisfied with having a large chunk of you net worth given to the partner and lawyers

    • banzini on 29/11/2016 - 17:48

      Dubai you say?

      • you forgot D) Asian rub n' tug.
      • zolinger on 30/11/2016 - 00:25

        1 in 4 Thai and Balinese prostitutes have HIV. It's like playing Russian Roulette.

        • banzini on 30/11/2016 - 11:53

          sauce?

    • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2016 - 20:07

      Equality is what made certain places more desirable places to live in than others (its all in perspective). I am totally for equality, but I dislike doublestandards.

  • Lunarboogie on 29/11/2016 - 17:56

    A point most people seem to have missed is the house OP bought might be insulated from future scrutiny if they don't move into it. That way there is less claim she has on the property. The day they move in will nullify this, even if for just a day.

    From my perspective, they are better off continuing to rent. If things go awry you may lose much of the contents and potentially savings but she will struggle to claim a house that she's never lived in or directly contributed to.

    Having just gone through this, hasten slowly grasshoper. The world can be a pretty unfair place.

    Oops - I only read the first page when I posted my comments but it seems others have beaten me to the punch.

    • chumlee on 29/11/2016 - 20:14

      Which part of the legislation says even if you move into a house for just one day your partner automatically gets half? That would be news to the whole legal fraternity.

      Maybe check out the legislation first. There is no set rules or formula for dividing assets. It is based on contribution, what you have prior to the relationship, what you accumulated during the relationship, any dependants, income capacity etc etc that's why so many relationship breakdowns end up in court

      • Lunarboogie on 29/11/2016 - 22:54

        There's no legislation on time frames but there is reams of case law. Once you're co-habitating a place it becomes a whole lot murkier to define the respective contributions of each side and it becomes a lot harder to differentiate his contribution from hers. Hence my suggestion not to move into the house in question if doubts abound. If you do, then her emotional support on every third long weekend or her sumptious home cooked lasagna then begins to take some form of monetary value that can be assessed against the money invested by the OP (and rightly so if you ask me). At this point it's descends into legal wrangling where you'll be lucky to know the difference from your @#$hole and your earhole. Far better to avoid all that and stay in their currently rented abode. If not sure - and clearly he is or he wouldn't have TNT'ed this shit storm - I'd keep renting until he knows which way to go on this.

  • isidore on 29/11/2016 - 18:30
    +4

    Well, I am in the same situation regarding an income imbalance except with reverse gender. It does feel quite difficult to trust someone regardless of gender, when there is a significant income and asset discrepancy. The idea of a joint account has been flagged at me but I am a bit terrified of the prospect of my other half seeing the amount of money I make. I mean, what does that do to someone's head anyway? And how can anyone not be thinking of strange ideas when they see the amount of money coming in?

    I am definitely drafting up a binding agreement before my partner and I sign a mortgage together. Not because I don't trust him, I just don't trust human nature and the unpredictability.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2016 - 20:11

      You're being pragmatic and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is some people are still stuck in the view of certain gender roles and the OP is catching some flak for that.

      If somebody thinks what you're doing is okay but the OP is despicable that is what I find incongruent.

      • isidore on 29/11/2016 - 22:44
        +1

        I guess when women don't work, they look after the house and kids. The male bread winner brings home the money but do significantly less housework. I always see my male colleagues bringing home packed lunches (made by their wives), with their incredibly nicely laundered suits. They seem to be reasonably awake during the day, I assume the kids are being looked after by their wives.

        When women are the main breadwinner, such as in my case, I don't expect my partner to look after me and the house. I doubt my partner would be happy to be a stay at home house-man and pander to my needs. In any case, I do equal housework and I contribute more to the household spending in general. We don't have kids.

        In my opinion, if one of the genders really want careers, kids, a nice house looked after by their other half, packed lunches, freshly pressed suits, etc., then whoever is giving up their time to do these things should be paid their fair share. I personally wouldn't want to give up my career to look after the house and my partner, even if I get half the house in the event of a separation.

        So, each case to their own. Note the above doesn't apply to the gold diggers & people who marry just for beauty & youth.

        • Lunarboogie on 29/11/2016 - 22:59

          Not in all cases. When I was married, I brought home the bacon and did my half of the housework. The ex was too much of a feminist to accept anything less. It meant I was run ragged while she sat pretty. The stereotype where the male bread winner lords it over a forlorn wife chained to the kitchen sink is increasingly rare, especially in the big cities.

        • isidore on 30/11/2016 - 09:17
          +1

          @Lunarboogie: Why did you marry her then? Beauty? Youth?

        • harkoliar on 30/11/2016 - 17:29

          @isidore: Love is blind. Sometimes can't tell between lust and love.

          Or beer goggles….

        • Lunarboogie on 30/11/2016 - 17:52

          It was a long and complex saga but in short I lacked the cojones to walk away early despite every instinct telling me so out of a ridiculous sense of loyalty to her. Will never do that again.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/12/2016 - 19:57

          @isidore:

          The idea/pressure of a "complete" life that society has been peddling to us since we were born.

          Sex or guilt or a combination of both.

          Companionship.

          I think doing half the housework is fair, then asset split should be commensurate with financial contribution.

          But (without kids) the courts don't see it that way.

          Females are either to be protected or equals. Can't have it both ways.

          As a guy I was taught to treat women with respect and as equals while at the same time protecting and giving way to them (generally being a gentleman). I'm not one of those mens-rights whiners or chauvinistic knights that get offended when women open doors for them. After all, men were meant to be expendable. Sacrifice is our duty. We're designed to take risks and put ourselves in harms way. I'm not going to say no if women want to join in though.
          Thats a guys lot in life. Its not noble or praiseworthy, it has to be done and has been done for humankind to thrive.

          All that said, I think this marriage asset split thing is taking it too far. Why do people think that "love" is the idea of a guy willing to bear the risk that someone is entitled to his assets even after a 2 year de-facto relationship? Especially to assets that were acquired before the relationship.
          I may be wrong on my next point because I don't have any stats to back it up but I think child-custody overwhelmingly goes to the females in hetrosexual divorces.

  • kasp on 29/11/2016 - 20:14

    Ok what you want is a binding financial agreement. Costs about 2000ish to have made up.

    If you get married you will need a prenup. Also if you have kids that agreement isnt worth much until they leave. As family law will override any agreement.

    I got my partner to sign one and although difficult I just said I am bringing 95 percent of items as well as a house and i am not going to risk it. Sucks but you will be glad you got one but yeah I have kids with her now.

    • cyrax83 on 29/11/2016 - 21:48

      So the prenup pretty much means diddly squat now?

      • kasp on 29/11/2016 - 21:58

        No, but family law overrides them that has always been the case.

        Think about it imagine if it didnt. In my case I could leave my son high and dry because his mum signed an agreement.

        They are take into consideration though.

  • mataeka on 29/11/2016 - 20:24

    All good advice already given, but I've come from the same situation - hubs owned 2 properties before we met, I started helping pay down his mortgage early into the relationship (because we had an arrangement where he would pay the interest I would have earnt if we broke up) but because I'm not an (profanity) I would have just wanted back what he borrowed.

    In short, if your not a prick leading to a breakup and she is a nice girl, you should be fine. Kids changes stuff though.

    • kasp on 29/11/2016 - 21:02

      Spite changes stuff as well. Hurt people lash out and well its better to remove that option.

      • mataeka on 30/11/2016 - 11:34

        I agree which was the don't be a prick leading to a break up side of it. I mean its hard to know what her level of spite may be but I only would have gone down that avenue if he cheated on me. Not sure how I would have felt if hubs had of made me sign an agreement while we were dating. There was no prenup but I've also contributed hugely financially now and sacrificed job for kids, so were there to be breakup now it'd be a different story

        • kasp on 01/12/2016 - 07:37

          Doesn't matter, even if you do everything right you can still bring spite into the mix.

          Just recently I had two friends break up and he broke up with her multiple times and then she turned around after the 4th time and went not playing this game anymore we aren't getting back together.

          He became spiteful and vengeful even to the point where he called up my partner and suggested I was cheating on her with his ex because I wouldn't stop being friends with her (Known them both for years) We are in our thirties as well and well I didn't see that coming that's for sure.

          I have seen it with old, young, people I thought had their head screwed on straight all become nutbags when a relationship breaks up. Doesn't matter the circumstances either. Unless both sides decide to call it at the same time someone is getting hurt and when people are hurt they can become irrational weirdos.

  • donkey12 on 29/11/2016 - 21:21

    I brought 95% of the assets to my relationship and got a binding financial agreement when we hit 23 months living together. It was a make or break and he stayed with it. It's a way of him proving he isn't with me for money, etc. 4 years on.. still together and we're both building assets. :)

    • shaybisc on 30/11/2016 - 08:13

      I don't see how anybody, of either gender, could have a problem with that, donkey. Ooh, you don't love me- you don't trust me- bulldust.

  • lukelegend on 29/11/2016 - 21:47
    +2

    I did sort of the same, i got a bfa during the relationship, post nup, so glad i did as it ended badly and she tried with lawyers to claim more but the bfa came in nto play and i didnt get screwed over. Highly recommend getting one, you never know

    • ALpha on 29/11/2016 - 21:56

      what is a bfa?

      • kasp on 29/11/2016 - 22:01

        Binding financial agreement. Basically a prenup for people who arent married or getting married.

        You need to get it changed into a prenup if you get married.

  • belongsinforums on 29/11/2016 - 22:34
    +1

    OP - wink twice if you're in trouble. Wink three times if you need the self-righteous folk to stay off this thread

  • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 29/11/2016 - 22:44
    -3

    Frankly, I couldn't read past a few posts on the first page. How materialistic have we become?
    Marriages when your first concern is money are bound to fail.
    Do not spend time planning for the worst, when you can spend the time to work together with your partner towards building the best relationship.
    Frankly, money alone will not bring happiness.

    My two cents.

    • kasp on 30/11/2016 - 05:50
      +3

      You would need to have a net worth of about two cents to have that opinion with no risk.

      When you have hundreds of thousands plus which you have worked hard for how ripped off would you feel if you had a partner who didn't contribute to that walk away with half?

      • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 30/11/2016 - 07:20
        +1

        I have a wife of over 15 yrs, and I am the sole earner, two wonderful kids- one in selective school, and the other in OC- starting selective school from next yeay, have a house with joint ownership with her, and have most of our money in her bank account.
        Because I trust her implicitly.
        She is free to spend the money as she wishes, but I have never seen her wasting money.
        And I am not talking thousands of dollars, but hundreds of thousands of dollars.
        If she walked away with the money, I will be happy if she is happy.
        I can always earn the money again.

        • kasp on 30/11/2016 - 08:50

          Well not everyone a) has kids
          B) would be happy with their ex partner walks away with everything.

          I bet our attitude would change if you found out your wife had been cheating on you.

          People do weird shit when hurt and bfa is protection against that.

        • JetLi on 30/11/2016 - 12:20

          Being smart with money means you plan for all situations however unlikely, instead of being totally naive. Ofcourse no one wants the worst, but you still got to plan for it. Having her control most of the money when you are the sole earner is extremely risky and quite unnecessary.

        • AncientWisdom on 30/11/2016 - 13:37

          ^ This.

          Also - did you build your wealth together? It's very different when you bring a significant amount of wealth to the relationship you've worked hard for. Another thing - houses are not only assets with with monetary values, they can have huge emotional values as well.

        • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 30/11/2016 - 14:56
          +1

          @AncientWisdom:
          I had built a lot of wealth pre marriage.

  • Lunarboogie on 29/11/2016 - 23:10
    +1

    I agree. Poor indictment on the values of the OP. I was recently divorced where I copped it in the jatz crackers but that's life. I also got 14 (largely) happy memories and 2 gorgeous kids. Yes I lost a lot of monetary value but I also gained a lot in other terms. All up, I'd call it a honourable draw. If I meet someone else I'd be much more weary but certainly not to the point where I'd seek advice on OzB. I'm normally here for a heads up on leggo prices. Love like you've never been hurt OP.

    • poppit88 on 29/11/2016 - 23:34
      +1

      I wish (as I'm sure others on this form also do) that we could all maintain such a Pollyanna like persona.

      Love like you've never been hurt? No thanks. That type of thinking shows you didn't learn your lesson after getting kicked in the rear end the 1st time around.

      Nothing wrong with a bit of pragmatism and caution.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join