Property agreement with defacto who has contributed zero to purchase.

[Don't believe the Hype]

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.

thats how we operate too... the only downside I see is when it comes to buying gifts ... Very hard to hide those purchases on the 'our' credit card

[McDuck]

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

Yeah best for the lazy, irresponsible one.
Hard work for the other one, until or if they ever wise up.
I'm just going by all the people I know.
There may be the odd exception. Very odd. Ha.

[Don't believe the Hype]

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

financial incompatibility is often touted as the reason for relationship breakdowns... to your point some differences do drive great relationships... i.e My wife is a vegetarian, i'm a carnivore... others differences don't ... i.e. one a cash provider the other a drain on resources

[sidinz]

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.

Yes, it's been a very bad thing. Yes, something needed to be done about the people (usually women) who were done like a dog's dinner, but the Act has swung far too far in the opposite direction and I've read far too many horror stories of people being screwed over by leeches under it.

And unfortunately, for people like the OP who have assets, it means having some very hard and seemingly mistrustful conversations with new partners at a time when great damage can be done to a budding relationship. How can that be a healthy thing?

[Keys]

I doubt that purchase of a joint property, in itself, triggers the act.

Do you think that purchase of a joint property would be "a substantial contribution to the de facto relationship"?

I do.

[Wayne]

Do you think that purchase of a joint property would be "a substantial contribution to the de facto relationship"?

I do.

Yes maybe.
But if you and I were to purchase a property together I doubt we would be automatically considered in a defacto relationship?
So the purchase, in itself, is not what triggers the act, it may contribute to the picture.

[Wayne]

Yes, it's been a very bad thing. Yes, something needed to be done about the people (usually women) who were done like a dog's dinner, but the Act has swung far too far in the opposite direction and I've read far too many horror stories of people being screwed over by leeches under it.

And unfortunately, for people like the OP who have assets, it means having some very hard and seemingly mistrustful conversations with new partners at a time when great damage can be done to a budding relationship. How can that be a healthy thing?

I suspect you have some personal experiance in this which is colouring your view.
I am glad for myself that I was oblivious to the possibilities many years ago when I met my now wife. I had the house, she had her personality.
We got married, no pre nup, and 30 years later we are still very happy.

There are other ways to protect your assets prior to the start of a relationship and maybe that (trust maybe) would be better than bespoke options at the start of the relationship.

[sidinz]

I suspect you have some personal experiance in this which is colouring your view.

Nope. Not at all.

There are other ways to protect your assets prior to the start of a relationship and maybe that (trust maybe) would be better than bespoke options at the start of the relationship.

Which is why I set up a Trust several years ago. Only to now find out that it's not enough. Trust busting has become a semi-regular thing.

30 years later we are still very happy.

Which is fantastic. Unfortunately, according to the statistics, many do not do so well.

[investorak]

What happens if the property goes down in value by 100k. Do you want your partner to pay that extra debt?

Or

Will that debt be only against your name and and you will consider him a boarder just paying you a weekly amount?

[harmonist]

Have been through this recently, 3 years before you're defacto, having a baby together does not trigger the act, was an extremely sensitive thing to go through, in the end I didn't get a property relationship agreement, it was easier to sell my house and buy a new house together where I paid a large deposit then we went 50/50 in the rest with our own home loans, a much simpler property sharing agreement is then drawn up to say the deposit gets paid back to me before any losses or gains are paid out to us equally, this obviously doesn't cover any other assets you have, vehicles etc, the excess cash I got from the sale of the house never becomes relationship property even when defacto as long as I don't ever use it for any relationship stuff, a lot harder done than said!

[Bobsyouruncle]

financial incompatibility is often touted as the reason for relationship breakdowns... to your point some differences do drive great relationships... i.e My wife is a vegetarian, i'm a carnivore... others differences don't ... i.e. one a cash provider the other a drain on resources

Not incompatibility but financial stress is a major reason. Differences in relationships are life giving. 2 similar people often end up either bored or broke depending on which end of the scale they are on

[Seachange]

I spoke to my lawyer on this subject this morning... As I understand it you can set up the Relationship Property Agreement as you wish, either protecting only your original equity in the property, or the full equity plus any capital gain. However, the agreement must be deemed fair in the eyes of the court. If the agreement is seen as unfair, then you risk opening yourself up to the whole agreement being thrown out and you are back to square one again...

[Joolee]

go see a lawyer NOW
I wish I had - my partner and I have now split and he gets HALF my house. MY house. That he contributed NOTHING to. But the law is the law.
And it's so much harder to start again under the current rules.

yeah, it's all great when you are in love and life is happy and full of fluffy kittens and sweet roses. But once the shit hits the fan it's too late to protect your investment.

[Oopsiedaisies]

Hi All
thank you for your insights on relationships. I was fundamentally asking what is a fair way to have the agreement, as in the content of it. I do know I need one. Yes I laugh about those who scoff at the sadness of it all and how their 30 year relationship is all good living with "their" money. I was one of those too. However I came out of a 20 year relationship where my husband was hiding debt to the tune of over $100,000, hadn't paid himself for over a year ("please be patient, it is getting better with the business and we will be sweet") thus living off my wages while screwing some woman behind my back. TRIFECTA! Damn right that this time I am gonna protect myself.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

However I came out of a 20 year relationship where my husband was hiding debt to the tune of over $100,000, hadn't paid himself for over a year ("please be patient, it is getting better with the business and we will be sweet") thus living off my wages while screwing some woman behind my back. TRIFECTA! Damn right that this time I am gonna protect myself.

Sounds like you haven't gone past it. I suggest you seriously ask yourself whether a relationship is a good choice at present.