pre-nuptual confusion (1 Viewer)

[white_spazzy]

our notes said that pre-nuptuals were not taken into consideration in australian family law yet our teacher recently told us that it has been amended and that they are now taken into consideration....anyone know which is true and which i should say if the issue arises in an essay?

 

[melsc]

I was wondering the same thing...maybe take a lil trip to www.austlii.edu.au and check the amendements to the FLA

 

[goan_crazy]

our notes said that pre-nuptuals were not taken into consideration in australian family law yet our teacher recently told us that it has been amended and that they are now taken into consideration....anyone know which is true and which i should say if the issue arises in an essay?

i know this
i didnt learn this in class
i learnt this by myself
Family Law Amendment Act 2000 (Cth) takes pre nuptial agreements into consideration
il have a look at my notes and post up something more about it.

 

[goan_crazy]

Family Law Amendment Act 2000 (Cth)

here we go

Family Law Amendment Act 2000 (Cth)
• Allows couples to make binding pre-nuptial agreements about how they will deal with property, in the event of marriage breakdown, as well as during and after marriage breakdown.

 

[melsc]

Here is the full act for ur reading pleasure

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/flaa2000n1432000221/

Ok all ppl arent like me and dont find legislation exciting


90B Financial agreements before marriage

(1)
If:

(a)
people who are contemplating entering into a marriage with each other make a written agreement with respect to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2); and

(aa)
at the time of the making of the agreement, no other agreement (whether made under this section or section 90C or 90D) is in force between the parties with respect to any of those matters; and

(b)
the agreement is expressed to be made under this section;

the agreement is a financial agreement .

(2)
The matters referred to in paragraph (1)(a) are the following:

(a)
how, in the event of the breakdown of the marriage, all or any of the property or financial resources of either or both of them at the time when the agreement is made, or at a later time and before the dissolution of the marriage, is to be dealt with;

(b)
the maintenance of either of them:

(i)
during the marriage; or
(ii)
after the dissolution of the marriage; or
(iii)
both during, and after the dissolution of, the marriage.
(3)
A financial agreement made as mentioned in subsection (1) may contain matters incidental or ancillary to those mentioned in subsection (2).

(4)
A financial agreement made as mentioned in subsection (1) may terminate a previous financial agreement made as mentioned in that subsection between the same parties.

 

[goan_crazy]

i think remembering one act is better than trying to remember all that melsc with all the sections

 

[melsc]

My teacher expects us to...he is MAD

 

[funniboi]

remember - you don't have to remember everything, just the main purpose of the act & the year it was created, as long as you know what the act does, and you can put it on paper clearly, you're fine.

 

[Huratio]

My teacher expects us to...he is MAD

yeh i agree with funniboi - you probably won't have to remember everything.

 

[melsc]

yeh i agree with funniboi - you probably won't have to remember everything.

I know try and tell my teacher that...I usually just remember the act name and sometimes the sections only for important ones like the Marriages Act etc...

I just gave the whole section above bcoz sometimes it helps to understand it...I do expect to write all that

 

[Huratio]

nnn... bad example: I like to remember the Marriage Acts:
s90A-s90L - contracts of marriages.

anyways... i know what you mean.

 

[suger_plum]

how can they not be taken into account? arent they a legal document
dont worry to much, has it even been mentioned in the hsc before?

 

[melsc]

In legal studies we got told that there were no binding pre-nuptial agreements in Australia in regards to family law, but a party may bring an action against the other party in a civil court, as it was considered a civil contract?

I will have to ask about this one.

I think it was just changed recently

 

[roadcone]

i think you are right ^ ... it was the case that pre nups were not binding until a piece of legislation was enacted recently (like in the last 2 years from memory).. looking for it now, when i find it i'll post it up

 

[melsc]

was it the Family Law Amendment Act 1999?