Arbitration as an Alternative in Family Law
Recently, we have had a number of cases where parties have good prospects to appeal, but a decision has been
Call us on
A recent decision by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia starkly highlights a way in which inheritances are sometimes dealt with after separation. No doubt, the way in which this inheritance was dealt with will leave a bad taste in the mouth of many separating couples.
In this particular case, the parties had been married for about fifteen (15) years and had been separated for about four (4) years prior to the Trial. There were two (2) children of the marriage.
The Wife had run successful businesses throughout the relationship and was also the primary carer to the two (2) children.
At around the time of separation the parties net matrimonial estate was worth somewhere in the vicinity of $4.5 million. At or around the time of separation, the Husband’s father passed away and he received a substantial inheritance of some $3 million. By the time of the Trial four (4) years later this had dwindled to about $2.5 million. The Wife had continued to run the parties business interests and care for the two (2) children substantially for the four (4) years leading up to the Trial.
In assessing contributions the Full Court overruled the Trial Judge and ordered that contributions be assessed on the totality of the matrimonial assets (some $7 million including the inheritance) as to 52.5% to the Husband and 47.5% to the Wife.
Effectively, the substantial inheritance received by the Husband after separation had not only been included in the pool but the Wife had received in effect a good sized proportion of it.
This was a case, where the Family Court had assessed that the Wife had made greater contributions in relation to establishing the parties’ business interests and the care of the children. The Wife therefore would have received an entitlement of greater than 50% if not for the inheritance.
However, the interesting aspect of this case is that the Full Court were clear that the best approach was to globally look at all of the assets and to look holistically at each parties contributions (whatever they may be) from the commencement of the time they got together until the current date. This assessment recognised the late contribution by the Husband of his father’s estate but also recognised other substantial contributions made by the Wife.
Many people reading this may form a view that the Court was overly generous to the Wife and that the correct thing to do would have been to exclude an inheritance received from the Husband’s father.
Whatever one’s personal view may be, the case is a very stark reminder of the fact that the Court can take into consideration and provide a percentage split to either party of substantial inheritances even if those inheritances are received late in the relationship and even after separation. Each case will depend upon its facts but this case is a certainly a startling reminder of the effect the law can have.
If couples wish to quarantine inheritances that either may receive during the relationship than this can be done through a Binding Financial Agreement (either done before the marriage or during the marriage) that can specifically quarantine inheritances and prevent situations such as in this recent case occurring.
Also, this case illustrates the needs for parties to resolve their financial issues sooner rather than later after separation. In this case the Husband’s father died around the time of separation but it still took four (4) years for the matter to be resolved. In many cases, a period of four (4) to five (5) years after separation can allow the opportunity for many things to arise post-separation which can complicate a property settlement.
The advantage in trying to resolve property settlement sensibly and soon after separation is that assets can be clearly identified and valued and the impact of what each party may or may not do after separation will have little or no impact. In some cases, it is just not possible to do this but it should always be a focus to resolve financial issues once the emotional relationship has ended.
The Wife had run successful businesses throughout the relationship and was also the primary carer to the two (2) children.
At around the time of separation the parties net matrimonial estate was worth somewhere in the vicinity of $4.5 million. At or around the time of separation, the Husband’s father passed away and he received a substantial inheritance of some $3 million. By the time of the Trial four (4) years later this had dwindled to about $2.5 million. The Wife had continued to run the parties business interests and care for the two (2) children substantially for the four (4) years leading up to the Trial.
Recently, we have had a number of cases where parties have good prospects to appeal, but a decision has been
Recently, we have had a number of cases where parties have good prospects to appeal, but a decision has been
Recently, we have had a number of cases where parties have good prospects to appeal, but a decision has been
© 2024 Hartley Family Law – All Rights Reserved | Privacy | Terms & Conditions
The Privacy Statement of the Company is incorporated into these Terms and Conditions. The Company respects the privacy of all its customers and business contacts. The Company is subject to the requirements of the National Privacy Principles which are contained in the Privacy Act.
1. How is personal information collected?
Your name, email address and phone number are collected on the contact form to allow the Company to contact you.
If you email or phone the Company directly, then the Company may record your personal details.
Your personal information may be used to:
a) Improve service to you, the customer
b) The Company may use personal information about you for marketing and research purposes. If you do not wish this to occur, please contact us and we will ensure this does not occur
c) Your personal information is not disclosed to any organisation outside of the Company.
2. Will personal information be given to anyone else?
The Company does not sell or provide your personal information to any other company.
3. Security of personal information
The Company employees are required, as a condition of their employment, to treat personal information held by the Company as confidential, and to maintain the confidentiality of that personal information.
The Company protects the personal information it collects in a secure database.
4. Access and correction
You can access your data at any time by contacting the Company directly.
You also have the right to ask us to correct information about you which is inaccurate, incomplete or out of date.
We ask you to contact the Company by email or phone using the Company contact details if you wish to access or correct any of your personal details.
5. Online privacy issues
To the extent that this Privacy Policy applies to online privacy issues, it is to be read as forming part of the terms of use for our website. When you deal with the Company whether online or otherwise, the Company takes its privacy obligations seriously.
6. Additional privacy information and how to contact the Company
The Company may change its Privacy Policy at any time.
For further information about privacy issues and the protection of privacy visit the Australian Federal Privacy Commissioner’s website at www.privacy.gov.au. If you feel that The Company is not complying with this Privacy Policy, or if you have other privacy concerns, please contact the company.