Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Divorce buggers Money Management

Jump to new
I am very concerned, heightened by 2 shots of whisky and a few reds.

We have lost the the tenet of the thread. We are supposed to be commiserating our ole Pal Garmat's demise on the loss of Gumnut (was it 4 or 5) and her temerity of taking his money to the cleaners.

Remember as a kid there were folk who would bless your money, five quid to a guinee and that sort of thing. So maybe mrs gumnut 5 meant well (sort of a blessing) but the result has been catastrofic for my Pal garpal.

So stop being selfish in discussing how much you can screw out of you r t etc., and concentrate on the real point here.

Hope you are not embarrassed by me airing you deserved defence in public Garpal but some jobs just have to be done.

expolding again
 
jono1887 said:
really.. so my moving in and living with someone you are entitled to half their wealth? What happens if your sharing an apartment with some rich foreign exchange student? Are you entitled to 50% of their assets as well? :eek:
Click to expand...

Well, not yet, jono, but who knows in the future?

It's one of the more bizarre changes to the law imo. Means a couple can't see how living together works for them for a decent period of time, without being encumbered by the State interfering again.

It's as well to remember, though, that amongst all this discussion it's only when couples can't agree in private on the splitting of assets, custody, maintenance etc, that the law gets involved.
 
I've never been married, but I've always had my reservations about marriage.
This has been an interesting thread for me. Especially w/ re; to divorce lawyers and the waste that goes to them.


I have a strong sense that I will remain a bachelor for a very long time, maybe till the end.


Life gets complicated when you get older, unfortunately. This can be depressing, depending on how you look at it.
 
Julia said:
It's as well to remember, though, that amongst all this discussion it's only when couples can't agree in private on the splitting of assets, custody, maintenance etc, that the law gets involved.
Click to expand...

It seems that the goal is actually to prevent marriage and normal family structure :rolleyes:. Longterm relationships and marriage is a poor trade. It has a negative expectation, and the bet can bankrupt us. I hate to view marriage this way, but it is forced upon me by an unfair system that can easily be abused.
 
Looks like hookers are your best option! WTF is spousal maintenance anyway!

'Spousal maintenance' for mistresses

PHILANDERING husbands could soon be forced by the courts to keep paying for their mistresses after an affair ends.

That is just one outcome set to arise from laws on broken de facto relationships that will take effect early next year, The Courier-Mail reports.

Under the Family Law Act reforms, de facto partners together for two years will get the same rights as married couples to seek "spousal maintenance" claims.

Maintenance, as distinct from child support, may be ordered when the other party is "unable to support herself or himself adequately" following separation.

But legal experts warn the amended Act - passed in the Senate on Monday - opens the definition of a de facto couple to wide interpretation.

It prescribes a de facto relationship as an opposite-sex or same-sex couple "living together on a genuine domestic basis".

Yet it also stipulates that a de facto alliance can exist even if one of the partners is legally married to somebody else or in another de facto relationship.

Veteran Brisbane family lawyer Paul Hopgood said the door was ajar for jilted lovers to seek maintenance orders.

"I get high-profile people from around town saying, 'I'm having an (affair) with so and so. I wine and dine her and take her on holidays. I look after her and it's been going on for five years. But I'm safe - she hasn't got the key to my house'.

"You don't have to live in the same house and under the same roof to be a de facto. A lot of people are living in de facto relationships and don't think they are."

Mr Hopgood cited a couple who might not share a home because of international business commitments.

"If everything else is there, apart from the common residence, they've still got a de facto relationship."

In a further twist, the laws shape as a threat to the coffers of polygamist husbands. Queensland Law Society family law chairman Julie Harrington said: "In polygamy, you have only one marriage that's recognised, so you have wives two, three and four as the de factos.

"At least those women will now have some rights which they otherwise didn't (have) under the Family Law Act."

Ms Harrington said the new laws could also create a debt nightmare for others, who now face the possibility of ongoing spousal support to a string of previous de facto partners.

With married couples, maintenance orders generally end when the ex-partner receiving the money remarries.

De factos will come under the same rules if they marry a new partner. But no explicit provision exists in the legislation for maintenance payments to stop should a recipient enter a new de facto relationship.
Click to expand...
 
Dumb legislation.
People are in defacto relationships or just co-habitate and not get married b/c the legal requirements of the institution of marriage are so onerous.
 
A person would be stupid for not knowing where they stand on these issues and not trying to protect themselves. Was a story in the paper a year or so ago about army wives cleaning out their husbands whilst they were away overseas on tour. Gone for 6mths on tour and come back to an empty house and empty bank account. Got so bad the army had to do something to protect their pays! There doesnt seem to be any laws out there anymore to protect the honest person having a go for themselves.
 
Like every thing else In Australia it all needs to be thrown out and start again.. the Femnazi have taken over the Rooster's house.
 
overit said:
Looks like hookers are your best option! WTF is spousal maintenance anyway!
Click to expand...

In reality the law is aimed at protecting children of a de facto relationship. Until now, the Family Court did not have powers to split the assets of de facto partners. So up to now in NSW for instance, the state laws governed for de facto cases which were heard in the district or supreme courts. The state laws did not take in to account the "future needs" of the parties, thus when assets were split, the court was not allowed to account for the fact that one party (the mother usually) would have predominant care of the children in future, which in turn affected her ability to earn a sustainable income. Assets were merely split on the basis of contributions. ie you contibuted 40% to the final asset pool you are returned 40% of the asset pool. (although caring for the children was considered a non-financial contribution during the relationship, the effect of which is that the mother would be entitled to half the earnings of the father during the relationship.) Under the state laws, the mother (assuming she ended up with predominant care of the kids) could not get her future needs accounted for, could not get at his superannuation (even if she gave up her career to care for the kids), and was generally not entitled to maintenance.

So by bringing de factos under federal law that is heard in the family court the changes are mostly aimed at changing the above, though they potentially may in theory have some unforeseen knock on effects.
 
explod said:
I am very concerned, heightened by 2 shots of whisky and a few reds.

We have lost the the tenet of the thread. We are supposed to be commiserating our ole Pal Garmat's demise on the loss of Gumnut (was it 4 or 5) and her temerity of taking his money to the cleaners.

Remember as a kid there were folk who would bless your money, five quid to a guinee and that sort of thing. So maybe mrs gumnut 5 meant well (sort of a blessing) but the result has been catastrofic for my Pal garpal.

So stop being selfish in discussing how much you can screw out of you r t etc., and concentrate on the real point here.

Hope you are not embarrassed by me airing you deserved defence in public Garpal but some jobs just have to be done.

expolding again
Click to expand...
A good 5th partner for GG would be Rose P------s. For a start she would most likely have more money than him and the 5th marriage would definitely be the last, one way or the other.

He would however need a trusted food tester before anything passes his lips.
 
Absolutely said:
In reality the law is aimed at protecting children of a de facto relationship. Until now, the Family Court did not have powers to split the assets of de facto partners. So up to now in NSW for instance, the state laws governed for de facto cases which were heard in the district or supreme courts. The state laws did not take in to account the "future needs" of the parties, thus when assets were split, the court was not allowed to account for the fact that one party (the mother usually) would have predominant care of the children in future, which in turn affected her ability to earn a sustainable income. Assets were merely split on the basis of contributions. ie you contibuted 40% to the final asset pool you are returned 40% of the asset pool. (although caring for the children was considered a non-financial contribution during the relationship, the effect of which is that the mother would be entitled to half the earnings of the father during the relationship.) Under the state laws, the mother (assuming she ended up with predominant care of the kids) could not get her future needs accounted for, could not get at his superannuation (even if she gave up her career to care for the kids), and was generally not entitled to maintenance.

So by bringing de factos under federal law that is heard in the family court the changes are mostly aimed at changing the above, though they potentially may in theory have some unforeseen knock on effects.
Click to expand...
You seem to have a good grasp on the law, Absolutely.
As you explain it here, then it seems quite reasonable I suppose.

But from what Overit (I think) quoted above, it sounds as though it can apply where no children are involved and/or a couple are not even living together, which seems quite bizarre.

And I think we may assume that it's not just going to be the bloke who gets pinned for payments in this situation. I have a friend who has endured (foolishly she now realises) a 30 year marriage to an alcoholic. He has never held down a job in all this time and she has supported him from her own earnings. She finally left him about a year ago and now her lawyer is telling her she may be liable for continuing to pay 'spousal support'.
Bloody hell!

He gets a Disability Pension now, and drinks all of it. Seems completely unreasonable that she should have to give him a cent.
 
heres one way for you to save on the defacto problem perhaps

Once was involved in investigating an alleged de-facto relationship, 2 persons living together, one a outlaw bikie official.

He provided a written statement.

a short summary was:

"yes I allow this women to live at my place, yes, I have sex with her.
(I have sex with other women too), of course I let her cook and wash for me, why I else would I let her stay?
I give her no financial or emotional support.
I dont regard her as my defacto, I dont care whether she stays or goes.
I dont know or care what other people think"

the outcome of this matter was that no legally provable defacto relationship existed..gave me a laugh at the time
 
You've probably all received an email of the picture of a Porsche with the number plate "WASHIS". I always thought it was just a photoshop, but today I actually seen a Merc with the plates "WAZHIS" :eek:
 
explod said:
I am very concerned, heightened by 2 shots of whisky and a few reds.

We have lost the the tenet of the thread. We are supposed to be commiserating our ole Pal Garmat's demise on the loss of Gumnut (was it 4 or 5) and her temerity of taking his money to the cleaners.

Remember as a kid there were folk who would bless your money, five quid to a guinee and that sort of thing. So maybe mrs gumnut 5 meant well (sort of a blessing) but the result has been catastrofic for my Pal garpal.

So stop being selfish in discussing how much you can screw out of you r t etc., and concentrate on the real point here.

Hope you are not embarrassed by me airing you deserved defence in public Garpal but some jobs just have to be done.

expolding again
Click to expand...

Thanks explod, mate but I am in quite a blissful state with Dharma and am in training for a possible perch on the Steve Irwin down the track chasing the Japs.

She has allowed me keep the Arnage, I have learnt so much from her about what matters in life and she is learning from me about the pleasures of capitalism.

The 4th Mrs Gumnut can have all that is visible to her Family lawyer as far as I am concerned, which will be very bloody little..

gg

drsmith said:
A good 5th partner for GG would be Rose P------s. For a start she would most likely have more money than him and the 5th marriage would definitely be the last, one way or the other.

He would however need a trusted food tester before anything passes his lips.
Click to expand...

Garpalmansion does have two Dysons, so no thanks.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Garpalmansion does have two Dysons, so no thanks.

gg
Click to expand...
If you were around in the 19th century you could have joined the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints and got the pain of 4 wives over in one go.

I'm not sure of their views on multiple Dysons though.
 
drsmith said:
If you were around in the 19th century you could have joined the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints and got the pain of 4 wives over in one go.

I'm not sure of their views on multiple Dysons though.
Click to expand...

No thorns on a Dyson.

gg
 
Hey GG, 20 years ago I was interested in antique porcelain that was being found on old Spanish wrecks in Filipino waters .

On my adventures over-there I remember eating at a rough sort of restaurant run by an old Aussie with heaps of young females attending , he was kinda proud that they were all his girls , I did question him some on how he did it , his explanation was that he fed them so they did his bidding .

That guy was on a Aussie disability pension , the money was sent over and
he seemed to live like a porno king .

I never did fancy the locals myself being a " possible racist " :eek:

Funny how it works for some :)
 
Julia said:
You seem to have a good grasp on the law, Absolutely.
As you explain it here, then it seems quite reasonable I suppose.

But from what Overit (I think) quoted above, it sounds as though it can apply where no children are involved and/or a couple are not even living together, which seems quite bizarre.

And I think we may assume that it's not just going to be the bloke who gets pinned for payments in this situation. I have a friend who has endured (foolishly she now realises) a 30 year marriage to an alcoholic. He has never held down a job in all this time and she has supported him from her own earnings. She finally left him about a year ago and now her lawyer is telling her she may be liable for continuing to pay 'spousal support'.
Bloody hell!

He gets a Disability Pension now, and drinks all of it. Seems completely unreasonable that she should have to give him a cent.
Click to expand...

Yes what Overit describes would be one of the potential knock on effects. But you have to realise that whilst the law sets the guidelines, the court has a certain amount of discretion on how to apply the laws. So for someone to take on the expense of the court process, they would want to be petty sure that they are going to achieve the outcome they desire.

I know a bit about it because I have been through it. Whilst I used a lawyer I found it advantageous to learn the laws myself and how they seemed to be applied by the court, and therefore I could be independently confident that it was even worth spending the money to defend my case . My ex put in a claim for a huge relief and then just left it to her lawyers to work out how to justify it for her. She failed dismally to the point that the judge felt it wasn't even necessary to put me on the stand after she had spent an embarrassing (for her) hour up there being cross-examined by my barrister.
 
Top