Tuesday, February 17

Aussie family lawyer reveals common money myths when couples separate: ‘People don’t realise’


Here’s something I see all the time, and it still surprises people.

Two adults. Sensible. Switched on. In love. Want to spend as much time as possible together in the same space.

Maybe they think, “Rent is so expensive, why don’t we just half our costs and move in together?”

Under Australian law, that decision can be a major financial event. And most people don’t realise it until it’s too late.

RELATED

People still think there’s a bright line between “dating”, “living together”, and “married”.

Legally, that line barely exists.

Once a relationship is considered de facto, a breakup can trigger property settlements, superannuation splits and, in some cases, ongoing financial obligations. No ring. No wedding. No paperwork announcing you’ve crossed into this zone.

It just… happens.

Australian de facto law doesn’t work on neat rules. There’s no form you sign or ceremony that you need to do.

Instead, courts look back after the relationship ends and look at things like:

  • How long you lived together

  • Are there any children

  • Whether you shared finances or supported each other

  • How property was used

  • Whether one person sacrificed earning capacity

  • How you presented yourselves socially

There’s no single factor that decides it. Duration alone isn’t enough. And two years of living together is not a hard line, despite how often it’s quoted.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard these, I’d be writing this from a beach somewhere.

“The house was mine before we met.”

Assets owned before entering into a relationship can still be subjected to a split after separation.

“We kept our finances separate.”

Living together is already a form of financial interdependence.

“We didn’t want to get married because we didn’t want the legal stuff.”

Ironically, you may have signed up for most of it anyway.

These aren’t reckless people. Many are professionals, investors, business owners. But this isn’t talked about enough and it is so frustrating to see people repeatedly fall into the same mistake unknowingly.

If you know and understand this, and then enter into a relationship and move in together, then I have no bone to pick with you.

Once a relationship is considered de facto, a breakup can trigger property settlements, superannuation splits and, in some cases, ongoing financial obligations.
Once a relationship is considered de facto, a breakup can trigger property settlements, superannuation splits and, in some cases, ongoing financial obligations. · (Source: Getty)

One example that we have dealt with this year involved a professional who owned a home and a small but growing business long before entering a relationship. The relationship itself was 7 years long, and there was no marriage.

They moved in together, shared living expenses, and his partner took on more of the domestic load while he focused on expanding the business. When the relationship ended, what he thought was a clean personal breakup turned into a complex financial dispute. The home he assumed was untouchable was brought into the property pool and the business had to be valued.

And he said the most common sentence we hear all the time:

“I had no idea this could happen.”

Binding financial agreements have an image problem, mostly because people tend to confuse planning with pessimism and assume that putting something in writing somehow predicts the end of a relationship.

It doesn’t.

Are you pessimistic for taking out home insurance? For buying insurance for your car in case something goes wrong?

In reality, these agreements serve the same purpose as insurance, estate planning, or asset structuring: they acknowledge that life is unpredictable and that sensible people plan for uncertainty without expecting the worst to happen.

When done properly, a financial agreement isn’t about mistrust or negativity; it’s about clarity. It allows each person to protect what they bring into a relationship, sets expectations while things are still calm and cooperative, and significantly reduces the likelihood of costly disputes if the relationship does come to an end.

Perhaps most importantly, it removes guesswork at a time when emotions tend to run high and rational decision-making is at its lowest.

Seen through that lens, financial agreements sit comfortably alongside wills and insurance policies. They’re not a statement about how confident you are in a relationship; they’re a statement about how seriously you take your financial future. And if the relationship lasts forever, which is always the hope, the agreement simply stays tucked away in a drawer, never needed and never noticed.

Hayder Shkara is the Principal and Director at Sydney law firm Justice Family Lawyers.

Get the latest Yahoo Finance news – follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *