Help us have a family

Forums › Off topic › Help us have a family

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

6704 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1218013 20-Jan-2015 08:53

What exactly is the criteria for engaging this asset sharing? When I was flatting I always tried to avoid staying with the same flatmates for more than two years because I was unsure of how this whole thing works.

It seems to be fraught with complexities and I suspect most people don't fully understand what risk they're exposed to.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1218079 20-Jan-2015 10:20

alasta: What exactly is the criteria for engaging this asset sharing? When I was flatting I always tried to avoid staying with the same flatmates for more than two years because I was unsure of how this whole thing works.

It seems to be fraught with complexities and I suspect most people don't fully understand what risk they're exposed to.

I'm sorry what?!

You MOVED HOUSES to avoid getting some free advice on whether your "relationship" was defacto? You aren't serious surely? You understand the CAB is free, and have an 0800 ?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1218136 20-Jan-2015 11:12

Aredwood:
Glassboy:
Aredwood: Being a sperm donor is something I might just consider. As I don't see myself ever getting into a long term relationship due to the stupid relationship property laws. Although I would have to do some research into the laws to do with child support. To make sure I wouldn't be be liable in that respect.
.

You'r showing your ignorance of the law, but then again it sounds like it's just a convenient excuse. See

Property (Relationship) Act 1976, Part 6
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1976/0166/latest/DLM441361.html

Only there is a whole pile of case law that that link doesn't show you. There have been lots of cases where prenup agreements have been challenged in court. And the courts have overrulled them. Therefore you can't completely rely on them. Especially when you see things like this in the paper http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11369381 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11319832 When people who have far more money than what I could ever hope to have, still end up with relationship property problems.

The other big reason for what I originality said. Is that I own a house with 600K equity in it. Why should I have to gift 300K or more of that to someone just because they happened to be in a relationship with me for a few years? I bought that house when I was 22 years old. When everyone else my age was living it up, I had to put every spare dollar onto the mortgage. And im still struggling now. But I will be mortgage free approx when Im 40. So don't want to hand over 1/2 of what I have worked for. To someone who couldn't be bothered doing the hard work themselves. Yes I can understand the intention of the law when kids are involved. But it applies in the same way even when there are no kids. Which is the silly part. And when there is 300K at stake - it is definitely worthwhile from an Ex partners point of view to try and challenge a prenup in court. So you would have to budget for lawyers fees to defend it.

Either way it is alot cheaper to not get into a relationship in the first place.

It's a curious law - as is the one that appears to prevent you from leaving your estate to the cats home when you die if you wish to.

Horseychick

150 posts

Master Geek

#1218261 20-Jan-2015 13:10

Aredwood:
Glassboy:
Aredwood:
Glassboy:
Aredwood: Being a sperm donor is something I might just consider. As I don't see myself ever getting into a long term relationship due to the stupid relationship property laws. Although I would have to do some research into the laws to do with child support. To make sure I wouldn't be be liable in that respect.
.

You'r showing your ignorance of the law, but then again it sounds like it's just a convenient excuse. See

Property (Relationship) Act 1976, Part 6
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1976/0166/latest/DLM441361.html

Only there is a whole pile of case law that that link doesn't show you. There have been lots of cases where prenup agreements have been challenged in court. And the courts have overrulled them. Therefore you can't completely rely on them. Especially when you see things like this in the paper http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11369381 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11319832 When people who have far more money than what I could ever hope to have, still end up with relationship property problems.

The other big reason for what I originality said. Is that I own a house with 600K equity in it. Why should I have to gift 300K or more of that to someone just because they happened to be in a relationship with me for a few years? I bought that house when I was 22 years old. When everyone else my age was living it up, I had to put every spare dollar onto the mortgage. And im still struggling now. But I will be mortgage free approx when Im 40. So don't want to hand over 1/2 of what I have worked for. To someone who couldn't be bothered doing the hard work themselves. Yes I can understand the intention of the law when kids are involved. But it applies in the same way even when there are no kids. Which is the silly part. And when there is 300K at stake - it is definitely worthwhile from an Ex partners point of view to try and challenge a prenup in court. So you would have to budget for lawyers fees to defend it.

Either way it is alot cheaper to not get into a relationship in the first place.

OK so firstly unless you have privileged information about those cases - which you shouldn't be blabbing here - you have no idea if they are directly relevant. Secondly if you don't trust your lawyer creating the appropriate documentation then there are other vehicles such as family trusts that allow you to protect property. Thirdly if you meet the right person (and maybe even had kids) you'd find your outlook would change.

It's pretty cowardly blaming the law for one's misanthropy or misogyny.

You will notice I said" Yes I can understand the intention of the law when kids are involved"

So to expand on that - Assume that I get into a relationship, Have 3 kids. Missus stops working so she can look after kids. Relationship ends after 5 years. She has missed out on years of earnings and career development due to being at home to look after the kids. And she is now a solo mum with 3 kids to support. So the 300K will allow her to support the kids and compensate for lost earnings / career. The law working as intended - This situation I have no problem with.

Now imagine same 5 year relationship but no kids. She has still been able to work / further her career as normal. At the end of the relationship, No kids to look after. So she is no worse off than before the relationship. Yet she is still entitled to 300K in this scenario. What "loss" has she suffered or what "wrong" is the law trying to put right when a "no kids" relationship ends?

As for family trusts - They can easily be busted open by the courts. If the house that is in the trust, is also lived in by the couple. And because alot of relationship property law is based on the outcome of previous court cases. (A judge makes a decision, Other judges have to make the same decision when the facts of the case are the same) This makes it very difficult and time consuming for a lawyer to both write up a perfect prenup. Also as new cases are heard by the courts, their outcomes add to current case law. Which in turn changes it. Meaning a good prenup contract 5 years ago might be full of holes today.

The newspaper links were simply 2 examples of people who Most likely have alot more money than me. So im guessing they got good legal advice on how to structure their affairs. Then 1 or more of: A situation occurred that neither them or their lawyer considered, the contract was unclear so the courts had to interpret it, The situation of the parties changed meaning the contract no longer reflected their actual situation, Case law changed meaning the contract no longer reflected the current law, 1 of the parties launched an opportunist case hoping to get lucky. Presumably if everything had been perfect from a legal point of view. There either these court cases would never have happened or the cases would have been about mundane matters like "you haven't paid" or "you didn't follow the contract" It was simply a way of saying that if people with better access to legal advice still run into problems. Then what hope have I got in making a prenup that will be impossible to challenge? (at least in the no kids situation)

Aredwood I have a simple solution for you - find a woman who as equal or more assets than you then let her worry about the pre-nup! You'd be surprised how many woman there are out there who are single with assets like yours, but it truly sounds like you're not really looking for other reasons. Myself and some of my female colleagues in the IT industry would definitely be writing a pre-nup if we hooked up with you.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1218341 20-Jan-2015 14:51

networkn:
alasta: What exactly is the criteria for engaging this asset sharing? When I was flatting I always tried to avoid staying with the same flatmates for more than two years because I was unsure of how this whole thing works.

It seems to be fraught with complexities and I suspect most people don't fully understand what risk they're exposed to.

I'm sorry what?!

You MOVED HOUSES to avoid getting some free advice on whether your "relationship" was defacto? You aren't serious surely? You understand the CAB is free, and have an 0800 ?

Were you f***king your flatmate \ flatmates on a regular basis and doing relationship type things ?

alasta

6704 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1218359 20-Jan-2015 15:17

heylinb4nz:
networkn:
alasta: What exactly is the criteria for engaging this asset sharing? When I was flatting I always tried to avoid staying with the same flatmates for more than two years because I was unsure of how this whole thing works.

It seems to be fraught with complexities and I suspect most people don't fully understand what risk they're exposed to.

I'm sorry what?!

You MOVED HOUSES to avoid getting some free advice on whether your "relationship" was defacto? You aren't serious surely? You understand the CAB is free, and have an 0800 ?

Were you f***king your flatmate \ flatmates on a regular basis and doing relationship type things ?

I would love to see this question arise in court.

"Sorry, the GCSB's cameras in your bedroom weren't working but we trust you to give an honest account of the graphic detail of what may or may not have happened in said bedroom. Oh, and by the way, were you doing 'relationship type things', whatever that means"?

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1218424 20-Jan-2015 16:52

Horseychick:

Aredwood I have a simple solution for you - find a woman who as equal or more assets than you then let her worry about the pre-nup! You'd be surprised how many woman there are out there who are single with assets like yours, but it truly sounds like you're not really looking for other reasons. Myself and some of my female colleagues in the IT industry would definitely be writing a pre-nup if we hooked up with you.

Yep I know a few. But then again there's nothing to say that any woman has ever tried to change Aredwood's mind. :-)

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1218428 20-Jan-2015 16:56

Mark:
Glassboy:

You misread and obviously don't understand the basic genetic difference between males and females.

Well duhhh!!! of course I don't know the differences from a genetic perspective, I work in data storage not genetics!!

But I skimmed enough before I lost interest to read "Theoretically, it also could mean that lesbian couples could give birth to a baby girl without the need for a father. Women do not carry the genetic information required to make a boy.".

So you've never heard of X and Y chromosomes?

Mark

1653 posts

Uber Geek

#1218683 20-Jan-2015 22:44

Glassboy:

So you've never heard of X and Y chromosomes?

Heard of yes .. know what it REALLY means ... no clue! Just like I've no clue why you felt the need to say "You misread and obviously don't understand the basic genetic difference between males and females.", it did't seem to add anything at all to the conversation other than make you seem like a pedantic xxx :-)

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1218685 20-Jan-2015 22:46

actually the real answer is. everyone is made female. if ALL the male genes work then the female stuff is further converted to male stuff. if a single of those catalysts are not working you end up looking like a female, X or Y

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1218700 20-Jan-2015 23:15

It would be great if the original topic were to continue now. I'd hate for this interesting thread to be closed and a potential family disrupted because of all the off-topic banter.

jnimmo

1097 posts

Uber Geek

#1218735 21-Jan-2015 00:04

I had considered it after hearing that there is a waiting list a few years ago. My better half isn't OK with it though which answers that.

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1218737 21-Jan-2015 00:18

Aredwood:
Only there is a whole pile of case law that that link doesn't show you. There have been lots of cases where prenup agreements have been challenged in court. And the courts have overrulled them. Therefore you can't completely rely on them. Especially when you see things like this in the paper http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11369381 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11319832 When people who have far more money than what I could ever hope to have, still end up with relationship property problems.

.

bush lawyer here

neither of those cases read like prenup / relationship property issues to me

2nd one is hard to understand what is going on

1st one sounds like a contesting will situation in the high court. I unfortunately have some experience of that with righting wrongs of someone that was taking advantage of when they lacked mental capacity, but all of this is incredibly off topic