Property agreement with defacto who has contributed zero to purchase.

[sidinz]

I was told that the other person gets instant 50% of the capital gain, but wait a moment, but there was no equity from them in the first place except from a small amount (in the whole scheme of things) that has been paid towards the mortgage? That doesn't sound right.

Not just capital gain, but all equity. Yes, even what you originally put into it. And no, it's not right, which is why lawyers are doing a booming business in agreements.

It's your asset and financial future. You need to think about what is fair for you.
Agreements range from 'both walk away with what they entered the relationship with' to very generous settlements that include lump sums and shares of future earnings.

Decide what it is that you want and work from there. Don't forget to think of possible future children and future income on both sides.

[Don't believe the Hype]

Well this has set alarm bells ringing for myself, I didn't understand the rules around de facto relationships as much as I thought.

I'm kind of in a similar position, been in a relationship for just over 2 years and living together for about 9 months. My partner was in uni at beginning of relationship and has since graduated but still has next to no assets. I definitely contribute more in terms of finances to the relationship

A few months ago I paid the deposit for an apartment and will be settling it in 2018 with my brother. I have net assets of about $150k vs my partner who is in overdraft and has a $50k student loan. So I guess I stand to lose a lot should we split.

It seems you need to be de facto for 3 years for property split to apply but I have to admit I'm still not sure about the whole thing. Probably best to talk to my lawyer I guess.

Writing this all down is quite sobering too. No plans to break up at all but I've always been a very very pragmatic person so a bit of a slip up on my part.

I think it is more important that you sit down with your partner and work out if you're compatible on a financial level... if you're a saver/investor and your partner is a spender then things will never work.

You're being really short sighted if you're looking to protect your $150k from your partner when you're young (assuming you are as your partner is finishing Uni).

Depending on what the degree is in, in reality your partner could find themselves on a starting salary close to the level of the nett assets so by the time they're entitled to half they could have the same level of assets as you.

[bmt]

Well I have been working full time since I was 17 (now 27), putting 25% of my pay into super. He is 23 and finished university last year and has been working up to 30 hours while starting up his own business which I don't have huge expectations for.

Since I am buying with my brother it is about protecting both of us really.

[Wayne]

if you're a saver/investor and your partner is a spender then things will never work.

Now that I just don't agree with.
I was a saver from way way back. Very deep pockets and stubby arms.
My wife was a spender.
She taught me how to reach deeper in my pockets and I taught her how to save a bit - worked really well.
Compromise!

[Don't believe the Hype]

Now that I just don't agree with.
I was a saver from way way back. Very deep pockets and stubby arms.
My wife was a spender.
She taught me how to reach deeper in my pockets and I taught her how to save a bit - worked really well.
Compromise!

Ahhh... Compromise - an interesting concept... If you'd remained a saver and your wife a spender how do you think that would have gone? ... My bet is you'd have tolerated the spending to a point then who knows...

What you've accurately pointed out and what I agree with is that you can start from one point and change behaviour to a position that is mutually acceptable; you less of a saver and your wife less of a spender - together you've ended up in a better place.

[Lego_Squared]

Bit sad how quickly human relationships are reduced down to dollars and cents.

This transactional, financial separation seems to be the default now. Of all my friends, me and my wife are the only ones we know that have completely joint/commingled money and/or no pre-nup.

[Wayne]

Bit sad how quickly human relationships are reduced down to dollars and cents.

This transactional, financial separation seems to be the default now. Of all my friends, me and my wife are the only ones we know that have completely joint/commingled money and/or no pre-nup.

No idea how old you are but many people, after years of being a couple, still talk of 'his money' or 'her money', who's going to pay etc.
We have 'our' money and that is the only money we have.
I spend money, she spends money and sometimes we talk about spending the big stuff (but not often). We just seem to know now what is reasonable!

Right from the start it was ours.

[McDuck]

No idea how old you are but many people, after years of being a couple, still talk of 'his money' or 'her money', who's going to pay etc.
We have 'our' money and that is the only money we have.
I spend money, she spends money and sometimes we talk about spending the big stuff (but not often). We just seem to know now what is reasonable!

Right from the start it was ours.

This really depends on the type of people involved.
If you have a well bought up girl who has been funded through education, cars, and house deposits, and she meets a bit of a physically attractive, but irresponsible looser type, then as a parent, you want your financial outlay protected. So once the fog of young love clears from her eyes, she can start again with a more usefull partner.

If you are both hard working, saving types, looking out for each other, then by all means share finances.

[sidinz]

Bit sad how quickly human relationships are reduced down to dollars and cents.

Yes, very sad. You can thank the Relationship Property Act for that.

[Bobsyouruncle]

if you're a saver/investor and your partner is a spender then things will never work.

totally untrue. The best relationships are often where differences exist.

[Wayne]

Yes, very sad. You can thank the Relationship Property Act for that.

Do you really think that is a bad thing?
The main thrust of the act was to create a more equitable outcome - usually it was the female partner who missed out on seperation as they hadn't 'contributed anything' as they were 'just the mother'.

There are always exceptions and outliers but I think it mostly works better than before the act.

[Dunning]

Few things to note through talking with lawyers and personal experience.
1/ Timelines are three years for de facto and immediate when you get married or civil union'd.
2/ when it happens it does not give them an iron clan right to 50% of your assets, it gives a very strong case for them. It can be argued in court but it will cost you plenty of $, time, strees and has a low chance of a complete reduction of the 50%
3/ Relationship Property Agreements (RPA's) can be signed at any point. They can also be reviewed and updated at any point. (pre marriage, post marriage, every 5 years, or even removed)
4/ List everything you both have as either separate or joint property. Think of everything, business, property, jewelry, cars, loans(both debts and credits), bank accounts.
5/ Talk to your lawyer abut what and why you want to protect yourself.
6/ good time to update your will.
7/ Start talking with your partner about it sooner rather than later. Things like letting them know that it can be adjusted in the future; and that if your together forever it's never going to be needed, can help.

I also think that it can be worth your while to pay for your partners lawyer. small price to pay for piece of mind.

[Keys]

Sorry Keys, a I am a newbie, I can't PM you.

You can find me by following my signature.

[Keys]

It seems you need to be de facto for 3 years for property split to apply.

I believe any one of these trigger the Act.

1) Three years in a relationship
2) Purchase of a joint property
3) Birth of a child together.

[Wayne]

I believe any one of these trigger the Act.

1) Three years in a relationship
2) Purchase of a joint property
3) Birth of a child together.

I doubt that purchase of a joint property, in itself, triggers the act.
You can't purchase a joint property with anyone - not just a life partner.
I would also have my doubts about the birth of a child - many born unintended (often to other than your wife or partner) and they don't automatically get claim to half of all you have.
One night stand anyone?