Two asset pools might not be better than one

Most family law property matters approach the division of parties’ assets by adding everything together into one ‘pool’ of assets and then dividing up the total value of that pool. However in certain circumstances, a Court may take a different approach where the facts support departing from the usual system.

One such case was the matter of Arthur and Arthur (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2016/324.htm) , decided by Judge Rees in Sydney in May 2016. In that case, Ms Arthur was due to receive a sizeable - $535,000 – inheritance from her mother’s estate, her mother having passed away after the Arthurs’ marriage had broken down. The rest of the assets totalled approximately $800,000, meaning that this inheritance would have been a very significant factor in working out each party’s contributions, if it was included.

 

However Judge Rees determined that the inheritance should be kept separately and that Ms Arthur would be considered to have contributed 100% to that pool of assets, and that she should simply keep the inheritance. This was a practical way to deal with the matter, but had the effect of producing a note-worthy result in the rest of the assets.

 

Mr Arthur’s family had provided significant support to the parties during their relationship, transferring as much as 75% of a house to them without really expecting any payment back. In addition, the parties were allowed to live rent-free in the property for many years even though it was owned by family members of Mr Arthur.

 

Mr Arthur earnt significantly more than Ms Arthur, who had significant obligations as a carer and whose employment prospects were uncertain. Nevertheless, Mr Arthur received 80% of the non-inheritance asset pool. This is a high percentage of assets on a pool of this size, and Ms Arthur did not receive a larger percentage because she was going to have the benefit of the very large inheritance she had received and was going to retain, meaning the inheritance was a double-edged sword for her.

 

What does this mean for parties contemplating a separation? Look after your parents!

Read More»

Wife takes a win after Husband’s failure to disclose his financial dealings

Judge Loughman in the Federal Circuit Court at Sydney was recently called upon to consider a matter where there had been very significant financial mis-dealings by a husband, in the case of  Rosario & Rosario [2016] FamCA 170 (22 March 2016) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2016/170.html).


Over the course of two years of litigation, the Husband appeared to disregard Court orders providing for him to deposit funds, not deal with funds, or arrange for the sale of shares and for funds to be paid to the Wife.

Instead, funds were apparently applied to pay a debt to another company that was poorly described by the Husband.

In the meantime, mortgages were defaulted upon and the Wife was left to attempt to keep the banks at bay on her very modest income.

The Husband throughout this time failed to make adequate disclosure, explain to the court precisely what debts he claimed to be paying or provide appropriate evidence to the Court.

What makes the case somewhat unusual is that as a way of recognising the significant injustice to the Wife of this situation, Judge Loughman determined that a percentage adjustment of what was left in the asset ‘pool’ should be made in favour of the Wife in light of the non disclosure.

Making reference to the matter of Weir & Weir (1993) FLC 92-338, Judge Loughman, held that ‘The authorities have it that in the case of significant non disclosure, the Court should not feel unduly constrained in making provision, within the identified assets for the other party.’

Even though the parties had agreed to ‘add back’ some of the funds that the Husband had taken without the Wife’s consent, the Court found that the ‘extraordinary circumstances of the untenable debt are not resolved by $495,000 being added back to the balance sheet. The husband’s refusal to fully disclose the circumstances of the alleged debt prevents any scrutiny of transactions with matrimonial funds by the wife or by the Court.’

Making reference to section 79(4)(e) and to section 75(2)(o) of the Family Law Act 1975 which provides that matters to be taken into account include ‘any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account’, the Judge made an adjustment of 5% to the Wife, even taking into account that the Husband received a small adjustment because he was eight years older than the Wife.

The case is significant because it provides some recourse or solution to parties who are struggling with a difficult or intransigent opponent who refuses to provide appropriate material.

Clearly every case is different and whether your situation meets the standard required in this case is a question that we can assist in answering – call Nevett Ford Lawyers Melbourne on 03 9614 7111 for a confidential discussion of your situation or email Melbourne@nevettford.com.au

Read More»

A whole lotto luck for Mr Elford as Judges decide not to divide winnings to wife

Cases about lottery winnings often draw attention perhaps in part due to the large sums of money that can be involved but also because they require some very particular and detailed attention to be paid to how parties in a dispute have organised their lives during their relationship, before and after the win.


In a recent case, known as Elford and Elford (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCAFC/2016/45.html), a Wife appealed orders that provided for her to, by and large, not receive the benefit of a lotto win that happened very early in the relationship.


Ordinarily, you might think that if a lotto ticket is bought by one person in a relationship and the winnings are received during the relationship then those funds should be put into the parties’ joint assets and simply divided.


This is not necessarily the case though.

In a case known as Zyk  and Zyk (1995) FLC 92-644, the Court said that it was preferable to approach the issue as one of “contribution” rather than as a “windfall”.

That is, the Court should look at how the ticket was purchased, how were the funds used to buy the ticket were sourced and were generally or otherwise used, and what happened with the winnings afterwards.

It should also look at how the parties’ relationship was structured at the time to determine their intentions.

Applying these principles, the Court in this case noted that the parties had kept their finances very  separate throughout their ten year marriage; they had separate accounts and kept no joint accounts; the Husband purchased the ticket from his money that was not mingled together with the Wife’s; that the parties did not ‘hand each other’ their pay at the end of each fortnight; and when the Husband received an inheritance during the relationship, he deposited that inheritance into his own account with the lotto winnings and kept the monies separate.

In total, the parties’ conduct seemed to demonstrate that they very much kept their finances their own and separate both at the time of the win, and afterwards.

The way the parties organised their affairs was so clearly separated that it does appear to be notably different to the majority of cases that family lawyers would see.

This justified the Husband receiving a very large recognition for his contribution of both his lotto winnings and the inheritance.

The Wife was provided with an Order that meant she received 10% of the total assets.

Missed in much of the online commentary about this case is that the Husband had also suffered a stroke some 12 months before the separation that left him blind, unable to drive or read and required kidney dialysis three times a week.

The case means that lawyers and parties should very carefully and realistically assess what actually happened in a relationship and not look to simply say that all of each other’s property is shared.

Our experienced family lawyers know the questions to ask you to keep you informed and up to date with these issues.

You can contact us on 03 9614 7111 or Melbourne@nevettford.com.au to discuss your situation.

Read More»

How do you divide property when a relationship breaks down? Consider the family law four step!

It is with regularity that family lawyers are buttonholed at social events to provide some impromptu advice to someone going through a property division.

What is consistent through these conversations is how little many people understand of the process, how much people cobble together their own solutions based on what is ‘fair’, and how infrequently lawyers are consulted at an early stage to provide some guidance and frameworks for discussions between parties.

 

I can recall a matter that was brought to me where the parties had been spending an inordinate amount of time dividing and ascribing value to each and every item of furniture or household appliance and dividing these in a way that was reflective with their respective incomes; but had no idea that they might be entitled to some of each others’ superannuation, a significant oversight that would have resulted in one party missing out on almost $100,000 of superannuation.

 

So what is the broad overview of the process that family lawyers will apply?

1. Identify your assets, liabilities and superannuation as at present. This is commonly called the ‘asset pool’
2. Identify what contributions were made into the relationship, including both financial and non-financial contributions. This will mean knowing what you had at the beginning, what you had at the end, and how you got between those points.
3. Identify what your and your partner’s future needs are – whether they relate to income disparity, care of children, ill-health and medical costs, or your age.
4. Determine whether it is just and equitable to proceed with any alteration of your existing legal rights at all, as well as whether the final result as determined by the above 3 steps results in an outcome that is just and equitable and also practical.

These steps are simple in some senses but as with everything, the devil is in the detail of the implementation and the ‘edge cases’.

Consulting a family lawyer early for guidance to inform your discussions, identify any problematic issues and define your expectations is one of the most sensible investments of your money post separation you can make.

Call our family law team on 03 9614 7111 or email Melbourne@nevettford.com.au.

Read More»