4 Comments Family & de facto law, financial agreements, consent orders
My gut reaction is what you brought in probably doesn't count for anything. I'd also say your future needs are the big one. What about super? You don't mention that. Your ages and employment prospects seem the main issues.
Unless he practised deception behind your back the fact you knew he did stuff but didn't really know what I don't think counts a lot. It seems 50-50 isn't going to be far off. How you value his collections who knows.
You don't need divorce for property matters - agree the pool then argue the split. I'm gonna say 50-50 maybe as you've repartnered ... or a small adjustment to you ... Lawyers always seem to give you a carrot to fight for.
He has way more Super than me and I have some caring responsibilities for my family. We are both in our fifties and he has also repartnered.
The loans were definitely behind my back and I had no knowledge of them. My house was not sold until quite late in the relationship and he put very little into the purchase of the home, compared to my contribution.
He is actually seeking a 70/30 split in his favour!
You need to put your super into the pool. The debts need to go in as well. If you knew he had the cars, how did you think he funded them? I don't think the house is going to count. It's if you put in actual physical upkeep etc. I'm not too sure you have engf on behaviour to make a huge argument. Contributions usually seem to level out no matter what. So down to future needs ...
So, here's my take, if relatively speaking your pool is big, I don't think they'll be a big value adjustment. If it's small, maybe it will adjust more in your favour, I'm gonna say 60 percent would look pretty good to me ... as a non lawyer.
As I said I think lawyers give you a good case ... get your pool agreed first. If you've repartnered I think it will blur things, I'd be arguing that reduces your needs adjustment based on disparity.