Future Needs in Property Settlement
In determining the division of assets between separating parties, the Court is required to turn its attention to the future needs of the parties in determining a just and equitable property settlement.
Judges will often make an adjustment in favour of one party over the other because their needs into the future are greater than those of the other.
The Family Law Act sets out a number of factors that the Court can consider in determining whether one of the parties has greater needs into the future than the other.
One of the most commonly relied upon factors is the care of children of the relationship who are under the age of eighteen years. Generally,the younger the child or children, the greater the adjustment in favour of the parent who is likely to be their predominant career into the future. The extent to which child support is being paid to cover the cost associated with rearing the child or children is also relevant as is the amount of time that the non-predominant parent spends with the child.
The Court also looks at the age and state of health of each of the parties. If one party's capacity to earn an income into the future is restricted because of illness or disability or because they are approaching retirement age, then this might cause the court to make an adjustment in their favour so that the end result is equitable to both parties. The Court can even consider the life expectancy of a party with a terminal illness in determining their future needs.
Another commonly used consideration is earning capacity. In many instances, one party has taken a number of years out of the workforce to care for and raise children. Not only can this mean that their income has not consistently risen over time, as it might with someone consistently employed full time, but it can also mean that their capacity for gainful employment is restricted because their work skills have become redundant or because they have not ever obtained appropriate qualifications or had consistent employment experience.
A common consequence of this is that that person doesn't earn as much as the other person does, and indeed, they may be unlikely to ever earn as much as the other into the future.
The Court has a wide discretion in these matters and can give consideration to any fact or circumstance it considers appropriate in coming to an equitable outcome.
DISCLAIMER
This article remains the property of Rachel Stubbs and Associates and can only provide basic information only and is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. This information can not be relied on as a substitute of legal information and it is only general by nature. This information was generally correct at the time of writing but changes in legislation or procedure may change the accuracy of this article. Should you require any specific legal advice in relation to your situation please contact Rachel Stubbs and Associates for specialist Family Law advice at stubbslaw.com.au or phone on +612 46555366. You can email us on info@stubbslaw.com.au.
Judges will often make an adjustment in favour of one party over the other because their needs into the future are greater than those of the other.
The Family Law Act sets out a number of factors that the Court can consider in determining whether one of the parties has greater needs into the future than the other.
One of the most commonly relied upon factors is the care of children of the relationship who are under the age of eighteen years. Generally,the younger the child or children, the greater the adjustment in favour of the parent who is likely to be their predominant career into the future. The extent to which child support is being paid to cover the cost associated with rearing the child or children is also relevant as is the amount of time that the non-predominant parent spends with the child.
The Court also looks at the age and state of health of each of the parties. If one party's capacity to earn an income into the future is restricted because of illness or disability or because they are approaching retirement age, then this might cause the court to make an adjustment in their favour so that the end result is equitable to both parties. The Court can even consider the life expectancy of a party with a terminal illness in determining their future needs.
Another commonly used consideration is earning capacity. In many instances, one party has taken a number of years out of the workforce to care for and raise children. Not only can this mean that their income has not consistently risen over time, as it might with someone consistently employed full time, but it can also mean that their capacity for gainful employment is restricted because their work skills have become redundant or because they have not ever obtained appropriate qualifications or had consistent employment experience.
A common consequence of this is that that person doesn't earn as much as the other person does, and indeed, they may be unlikely to ever earn as much as the other into the future.
The Court has a wide discretion in these matters and can give consideration to any fact or circumstance it considers appropriate in coming to an equitable outcome.
DISCLAIMER
This article remains the property of Rachel Stubbs and Associates and can only provide basic information only and is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. This information can not be relied on as a substitute of legal information and it is only general by nature. This information was generally correct at the time of writing but changes in legislation or procedure may change the accuracy of this article. Should you require any specific legal advice in relation to your situation please contact Rachel Stubbs and Associates for specialist Family Law advice at stubbslaw.com.au or phone on +612 46555366. You can email us on info@stubbslaw.com.au.
Source...