July 12, 2026 • 41 mins
More than 7800 divorces were granted last year, with nearly 6000 underage children seeing their parents split - that's about 8 divorces for every 1000 marriages.
Looking deeper, about 5 percent of marriages end in 5 years, 15 percent end within 10, and more than a third dissolve within 25 years.
With marriage numbers already declining, and the cost-of-living crisis still biting, how does a couple go about splitting up amicably? What paperwork needs to be sorted? and how can we ensure our assets aren't treated as collateral?
Family and Relationship Property Lawyer, Sharon Chandra, joins Smart Money to unpack what options there are.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks ABE.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Again Afternoon to you on this Mantoriki Sunday, I'm Andrew
Dickins in for Tim Beveridge and as Ping Floyd says,
it's time to talk about money. This part of the
program is called smart Money. Now we're going to talk
about divorce and the reason is that statistics have just
come out about New Zealand's latest divorce figures and that
shows a small but very noticeable rise in twenty twenty
(00:42):
five and eighty seven couples divorce. That's up about five
percent on the previous year. Now that is kind of
surprising because the long term trend shows that most of
us are actually even getting married at all, and there
has been a gradual decline in divorce numbers. But no,
it's up five percent. The divorce rate now sits at
about seven point nine divorces per one thousand existing marriages
(01:07):
and civil unions. Seventeen thousand couples got married in twenty
twenty five, slight dropped from twenty twenty four, but if
you look at the long term patterns, the picture is
a lot clearer. The stats New Zealand Cohort data shows
that around five percent of marriages end within five years,
fifteen percent within ten and roughly a third within twenty
(01:28):
five years. So put that all together, that means about
thirty five to forty percent of New Zealand marriages ultimately
end in divorce. You may think it's not going to
happen to you, and then it happens to you and
an awful lot of us. So for those who do
get married, over a third will not last. And when
(01:48):
that happens, one of the biggest hurdles to then leap
as a fair, a mutually acceptable and equitable division of
assets without your wanting to scratch each other's eyes out,
and with the profitability of marriage failure quite high, then
we need to go into marriages aware of of the possibility,
aware of the impact that might have to your money
(02:10):
and your assets if your union collapses. So to talk
about this and to talk about what we should do
to be prepared to be prudent, and to talk about
it when we're going through it. I have with me
a leading family and relationship property lawyer, Barrister Sharon Chandra
who joins us now for Smart Money. Hello and welcome
to the program, and we'll make sure your right make
(02:32):
friend is on there we go Hello, good evening, good evening,
good evening, good evening. So those divorce figures they freak.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
You out, Well, it's not entirely unexpected from my point
of view. I mean the cases that I'm coming across,
I'm saying divorce all day, every day, so I would
have actually thought that the rate was potentially much higher
than that, because that's really all I say. If you're
happy and you're getting along, there's really no need to
come and see me. So those are not the couples
(02:59):
that I come across.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
But it is a reminder to you that no matter
your intentions, no matter how in love you may be
with this person, comes down to the fact that maybe
in twenty years time, you're not going to be together
again because things change.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
Absolutely there's always a chance of that.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
So do people in New Zealand think about this enough
before they actually get married or does it when their
marriage slowly crumbles and collapses, does it come to a
surprise for them.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Well, I think entering into a marriage is like any
investment or business relationship, where you do need to assess
the benefits and the risks and then decide whether it's
a risk that you would like to take. I mean,
no one should go into it thinking that there's no
risk of things falling over all, the marriage failing. There's
(03:48):
always going to be a risk of that in any relationship,
and the question is is that a risk that you're
willing to take?
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Do you think enough New Zealanders realized that under the
Matrimonial Property relations Act as well, that it's two years
and then fifty percent of your assets, even the ones
that you bring into a relationship being actually are co
owned by your partner.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
It's so interesting. I get so many people telling me
about this two year mark, but it's in New Zealand
it's three years. If you're living together for three years
or more, that's when the equal sharing regime kicks in.
I think you get a mix of people being surprised
and others being not so surprised. But it really depends
on the particular asset and question that you're talking about
as to how it's going to be classified once you're
(04:31):
in a relationship.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Do you think a number of New Zealanders go into
these relationships they've got their own personal asset. They may
have been so good that they've managed to get a
little brick and tile. They come into a relationship with
their stuff, but they still think it's their stuff, and
they don't realize that by entering the relationship and going
through the three year period, it's actually our stuff.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
There's definitely that misconception out there, and so when if
a couple in that circumstance does ultimately separate, then it
can come as somewhat a surprise that the assets that
they brought into the relationship could have been could be
at risk of acclaim XERX.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Is that what it gets messy.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
I think there's lots of different ways that can get messy,
and this is one of many ways.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
So the question is, you know, it breaks your heart,
but your relationship is coming to an end, and you're
going in your own different ways, in your own different directions,
and you have to then fairly split assets. How do
you do that?
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Well, most of the time you'd negotiate a settlement through lawyers.
And the reason I say it's through lawyers is because
if you're going to have a legally binding agreement dividing
your property, then you need to get legal advice about
what you're legally entitled to before you sign off on
that agreement. That agreement won't be legally binding unless you've
(05:49):
received that minimum level of advice from independent lawyers. So
most of the time those settlements are negotiated and an
agreement is signed. That's what happens in the majority, so
hold on.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
So if you've actually sat down with your beloved I
we're getting married, and you come up with an eye
between yourselves that you think is fair and equitable and
that you could live with at that moment, it doesn't
really count unless you've actually got independent device that is right.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
There is a distinction between if you're talking about dividing
assets on separation or if you're entering into a prenuptial
agreement style arrangement. But in either scenario, you do need
to get independent legal advice about what you're legally entitled to.
That's the advice you must receive and then have a
lawyer sign off on your agreement. Whether it's a prenuptial
style agreement or whether it's a separation agreement, an independent
(06:38):
lawyer needs to sign off on it on behalf of
each party after advising them of what they're leegally entitled.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
So therefore, do you think it is actually a good
investment for a couple who are getting married for each
party to go away and get some independent legal advice
so they know exactly what the state of play is
before they enter the union.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
I think that can be a prudent way of looking
at it. The most common scenario with people who already
have assets before they enter into a relationship, or a
lot of the prenuptial agreements that I deal with are
what we'd call later in life relationships, where someone's already
been in a long term marriage, they've accumulated assets, they're
onto a second long term relationship, and they're wanting to
(07:17):
figure out how they can protect those assets going into
that second relationship. But most people on their first long
marriage or their first long relationship, this is not on
their radar.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
No, of course, not because they're full of all the
drugs you know that are just flowing through their body
right now, and they're full of happy, happy, happy, joy
joy joy. Without worrying about this. You need to have
you need to have a sensible, you know, unemotional head
on exactly.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
I think you need to think about it in a
bit of a commercial way, unfortunately, which is quite cynical,
but I think it's necessary if you want to protect
yourself financially.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Well on the text bills already actually found that a
bit cynical. He says, you've said marriage is the same
as a business investment, which is true in hindsight, but
the emotions of love are completely different to the emotions
of money or business.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Absolutely agree with that. I'm only looking at it through
one lens, and that's a legal lens.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Okay, Now look we're right here. Eight hundred and eighty
ten eighty is the number to phone at Sharon Chandra,
family and Relationship property lawyer, who can and take your
questions if you're about to get married, Would you like
to know what you should be thinking about or what
you should do? Do you have any questions? But of course,
if you are in the sticky aspect of about to
(08:33):
dismantle the relationship, is there any little advice that you
can give? We can't give specific advice at this moment.
You'll have to get your own independent advice from that.
But yeah, the number is right here, eight hundred and
eighty ten eighty, or you can text ninety two ninety
two if you want a little bit more anonymity about
the whole thing. What are the biggest mistakes people make
(08:53):
when the relationship breaks down.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
I think one of the main ones is it's really
important to even informally get some legal advice reasonably early on,
because the problem that I do commonly see as people
really do quite naturally want to try and negotiate an
arrangement between themselves, and there's no issue with that. It's
just that if you do it without getting legal advice,
(09:18):
and you informally agree to something, even though that's not
legally binding, it can still create certain expectations and if
you ultimately renegue from that agreement after you've obtained legal advice,
then it does make it harder to negotiate. So I
think that if you get legal advice early on and
then you want to go away and negotiate directly with
(09:39):
your ex, that's the most prudent way to do it,
because then you're making sure that you're not giving false
expectations on something that you haven't received advice about.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
And does that mean the old toruism that it's going
to be written down is a very important thing, So
you have a paper trail of proof of what you've
actually decided, because there'll be nothing worse than a couple
getting together and talking about stuff, and we're going to
do that, and then of course the expectations are risen
and all that. And if it's not down on paper,
black and white, if it's not been seen by a lawyer,
it doesn't really exist because you know, our perception is
(10:12):
dependent on the subject.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Yes and no. Having something informally in writing, even through
email correspondence between a couple once they've separated, that that
is in no way legally binding, so neither party is
bound to adhere to those terms. That's why if you
don't have an agreement where each side has obtained independent
legal advice and then signed off that agreement in writing,
(10:36):
anything short of that is not legally binding. So either
of them are free to reneague from whatever they informally
agree to, even if it's recorded in an email, even
if it's recorded on a couple of pages and they
sign it without lawyers, even that's not going to be
legally binding and they can't be held to it. So
that's why I think it's risky to start having those
(10:57):
informal discussions without actually getting even some preliminary legal advice because.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
That's interesting because I know because in this job I
I deal with a commercial war and defamation law and
stuff like that, and we're very, very very strict on
keeping a paper trail. So that and say, with all that,
journalists making sure they keep all their notes of their
reports of a paper trail. But that in itself is
not a legal safeguard.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Well, I'm only talking in the relationship property context. Certainly
in deformation proceedings. I imagine that paper trail will become
quite important.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
It's very important. Exactly. Oh, eight hundred and eighty ten
eighty is a number to the phone and I have
online with me right now, and of course with Sharon Simon.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
Hello Simon, good evening. How are you very well?
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Now? What good? What do you What are you thinking about?
Speaker 5 (11:47):
Well, I've got a scenario that I just like to
explain and see what you think about it. So a
couple meet, they move in and start living with each other.
They both get individual prenups drawn up and by lawyers.
Over the next ten years, two kids come along whilst
(12:09):
living in the family home and other assets are required.
What would be the strength of those prenups if they
were to face a separation that's.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
A really good question, Simon. The thing with these prenuptial
agreements is that they need to be reviewed regularly over
time as circumstances change. The more time that passes, and
the more circumstances change, the more susceptible to challenge it's
likely to be. So the situation that you've just set
out in terms of signing a prenup, ten years passes,
(12:41):
you have two kids, and you acquire other assets. That
sort of scenario could be ripe for a prenuptal agreement
to be challenged.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
So you don't just do a prenup. You have Once
you've done a prenup, you have to do postnups.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Well, I call a prenup a working document. We call
them contracting art agreements in New Zealand. It's a working
document because they need to be reviewed over time. If
circumcis stances changed significantly from the time the agreement was signed,
then that could be a ground on which to challenge
the agreement.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Particularly if the prenup is very specific.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Exactly, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Right, Okay, So but the thing about that is you're
doing well, you're doing well as a family unit, and
suddenly go well, I think we need to go back.
You know, one party says, I think we need to
go back and take a look at our prenup agreement
as well, And that can actually drive a schism between
a couple anyway, because they go, why, we've got the prenup,
We've got the deal.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Absolutely, that's exactly right. It's a really difficult process for
couples to go through because it is actually hard enough
for them to get on the same page and get
something signed in the first place, their alone have to
keep coming back every few years to review it and
assess whether the terms need to be changed or whether
anything needs to be amended in the agreement. So you're right, Andrew,
(13:57):
it is a very mentally difficult process for a couple,
and it's really the last thing that they want to
be doing is pulling this documentat and going back to
their lawyers every few years just to amend the terms.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
So, Simon, are you going to go off and do
a post nup on your prenup?
Speaker 5 (14:14):
Well, this is for a friend that I'm asking you,
But well I would like to ask is does the
court have some clear directions once children come along? And
it's been ten years and so on like it's now
looking more like a marriage. Do the courts have a
sort of clear direction on divvying up the assets in
(14:34):
a certain sort of format or is it the way
the claim is laid out by the lawyers to the courts.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Well, simon, I think that in this scenario it will
be either the prenup is going to be upheld and
those terms are implemented, or if it's successfully challenged, then
the prenup gets thrown out the window and then the
equal sharing regime applies whatever the rules that would have
applied without the prenup, those are the rules that kick in,
which is essentially the equal sharing regime of all assets
(15:01):
acquired during the relationship will will be divided equally.
Speaker 5 (15:06):
Prior to the relationship will be with the hell on
the prenup.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
Possibly, well, it depends on It depends on their status
as to what asset you're talking about, how it was acquired,
what it's been used for, so that that's a very
asset specific inquiry. But at the first stage is either
the prenup is uphowd or thrown out.
Speaker 5 (15:25):
Okay, okay, thanks for your time.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
No problem, Oh no, thank you for your time. Oh
eight hundred eighty ten eighty is a number of phone, Simon,
thank you so much for your call. We have in
studios Sharon Chandra, who was a family and relationship property lawyer.
Any questions about the division of assets as time goes on,
with the rise and rise of divorce and the fact
that so many relationships break down. She's here to answer
any questions you might have. Oh, eight hundred and eighty
(15:49):
ten eighty News Talks B All right, we have in
studio Sharon Chandra, family and Relationship property a lawyer, taking
your calls. Eight hundred and eighty ten eighty is the
number the phone and joining us right now is Tony.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
Hello, Tony, are you.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
What's your question? The Sandra?
Speaker 4 (16:07):
So you have full there with one of your children,
can you take them out of your will?
Speaker 3 (16:18):
The thing with providing for a child and a will
is that there is the law imposes what they call
a moral duty to provide for your children. So it
doesn't necessarily mean that you have to give your child
an equal share of the estate compared to the other children,
but you do need to make some provision for them.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
If you cut from that, and this is an adult child, of.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Course, it still applies to adult children. So if you
cut them out entirely, there's probably a real chance that
they would be able to make what's called a family
protection claim against the estates. If you wanted to structure
your will in a way that avoided the possibility of
them being able to make a claim against your estate,
you probably want to get legal advice about what you
(17:02):
think the minimum is that you need to provide for
them to stop them from making a claim without having
to give them, I suppose, without being crass any more
than you need than you want to.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
But this is interesting because a man's property is a man.
You know, it's a castle is my there's my castle
and all that, and if it's if it's mine, I
could give it to whichever of my children I want.
But that's not what the law necessarily says. It says, right,
the just can't cut them out. You have to give them.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
Something absolutely, I mean, there might be scope. You need
to get some specific legal advice about this, but to
structure your asset ownership in a particular way so that
the assets that you want personally are minimal by the
time of your death, But you need to get some
specific legal advice about how you would structure your assets
to make that happeny.
Speaker 4 (17:50):
I own my own home and I have two daughters
as well, but my son is and my wife died suddenly,
if you know what I mean. You know so it
is quite a for.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
Me, of course. I mean, I'd really suggest that you
sit down with the lawyer and get some specific advice,
because I'd hate to give you specific advice without fully
understanding what your circumstances are.
Speaker 4 (18:18):
No, I appreciate it, Thank you, thank you turning.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
I oh, eight hundred and eighty ten Eightyes number the
phone you can text as well, ninety two to ninety two.
Small charge applies.
Speaker 6 (18:25):
Hello Peter, Yes, Hello Sandra, Sharon.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
Hello Peter. Don't worry that all the time.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
The problem I hate it's Sharon Chandra exactly. And then
you get the andre and the share and it's suddenly
become Sandra. I just did it just before.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
And don't worry, Peter. It happens all the time.
Speaker 6 (18:44):
Mate, Sorry about that, all good, okay, been married for
thirty four years, separated eight years ago. Had a joint
account which we had nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars
in that account. Plus we owned a farm outright together.
The money was in a joint Basically, now I can't
(19:09):
access that account. Thinks she thinks that she has rights
to all the money that's there. I took one hundred
thousand dollars out when eight years ago to start another business,
and so that's all I've taken out of the all
the assets.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
So you're saying you've been separated for eight years, but
the assets have not been fairly and equably split as
yet because she's got control of the of the money.
Speaker 6 (19:34):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
So are you wanting to know how to access the
account or you're wanting to know what your.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Environment has done?
Speaker 6 (19:40):
Yeah? I want to know my entitled I want to
know my rights.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
Basically, where did the nine hundred and fifty thousand come from?
Speaker 6 (19:50):
Two hundred and fifty from when I left work, which
was superannuation redundancy sickly. Then we subdivided part of the farm,
got six hundred and fifty thousand dollars for that, had
some pine trees that we chopped down, got seventy seven
thousand dollars for them, and that basically it roughly ends
(20:12):
up to nine hundred and fifty thousand. So we had
no mortgage and we owned the farm outright with all
that money in the bank.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
And why does your X say that the money belongs.
Speaker 6 (20:21):
To her, Well, it's in her account, it's in a
joint account, but she's changed the past wad. I can't
get into it.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
I mean, on the face of it, it sounds like
the funds would be relationship properly. Are you getting legal
advice about any of this?
Speaker 6 (20:38):
I have been to a lawyer and all I wanted
was one hundred and thirty thousand dollars out of that
nine hundred and fifty and he said, can you not
amicably negotiate it without a lawyer?
Speaker 3 (20:51):
And no, we can't, So you probably need to. I mean,
if you want to get a second opinion from another lawyer,
it might be worth doing that because I'm not sure
if you heard the beginning of the show when I
was talking about the importance of people getting legal advice
before they start any informal discussions, if that's how they
want to do it, and if you're not getting anywhere,
then you probably do need a lawyer to help you
(21:13):
negotiate this on your behalf.
Speaker 6 (21:16):
Okay, yep, all right, pe, good luck, Yeah, thank you
very much.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
It is his money isn't it, And it's her money's
And that's for the wife to just say I can't
even get into the account. I changed it, I change
the password. That seems quite simplistic. So to get round
it is a strongly worded letter from a lawyer freaks
people out? Or are you going to have to get
into some sort of accusation because you know what people
(21:43):
then start to worry about then, is how much is
this going to cost me? And will I end out
spending so much money on lawyers that I don't actually
get any money out out of what I think is
owed me.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
Anyway, Well, I think there's two parts to it. It
wouldn't be unusual for cash and a bank account to
essentially be frozen until the relationship property division is sorted out.
So perhaps what the two concepts that Peter might be
conflating is the fact that the account is frozen right
now means that she's asserting that she gets all of
(22:16):
the funds. But there's a distinction between those two things.
Just because the funds are frozen right now doesn't mean
that they may not be ultimately divided equally. And if
you did want to withdraw some of those funds right now.
Then you can agree to what's called an interim distribution.
You can say, Okay, can we each have fifty thousand
right now, for example, to pay legal fees, etc. And
(22:38):
while we get the negotiations underway.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
It's also the difference between separation and divorce because a
lot of people get separated, but then, of course, normally
because of cost, you never quite get round to getting divorced,
you know. So when you get divorced, then you definitely
have to get the courts involved, and you have to
get the law involved as well. But a separation you
don't necessarily have to. So you know, if you do
(23:00):
decide to separate, should you really then put a time
limit on when you are actually go through with the divorce.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
That's a good point. My advice is generally to try
and get it sorted sooner rather than later. The time
limit starts running after the dissolution or the divorce order
is granted, you have twelve months from that date to
essentially file court proceedings. But I say to people, start
getting it sorted out immediately after you separate. The more
(23:29):
time that passes after separation, that the harder it actually
becomes to go back and trace what's happened post separation.
I mean, I almost feel sorry for Peter because this
has been going. He's been separated for eight years now,
his money's tied up, and a property division still isn't finalized.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
But a lawyer hasn't come in exactly exactly as yet.
So that's what he's avoiding, and that's why it carries on,
which is why I asked the question the difference between
separation and divorce and whether you should actually go through
the whole thing. It's all very difficult, and of course
many people texting saying, well, if you've got problems with
your kids and you've got a problem with your wife,
maybe you should try and reconcile first. So yeah, that's
(24:05):
wishful thinking. Hey, Mary, welcome to the program.
Speaker 7 (24:09):
Thank you so much for taking my call. Just quickly,
I have a friend of mine has a friend who
has been in a relationship for seven years. He moved
into her house and he has been contributing to all
the household comings and goings and bills and things like that.
(24:33):
Now this person went to somebody and got went to
Adlisis and got her partner to sign.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
A waiver.
Speaker 7 (24:46):
Right, So because a waiver of rights because she's not
very well, and she said if she dies, she wants
the money and listen to go to her children. Oh, yes,
he can live in the house for twelve months, but
then he's out. Where does he stand.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
This waiver of rights? Did they each receive independent legal
advice from their own lawyers? Did they each have separate lawyers?
Speaker 8 (25:12):
I don't think so.
Speaker 7 (25:12):
I thought of her loan, so I think it was
just her lawyer.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
Right. So the waiver of rights is unlikely to be enforceable,
which well mean how long have they been living together?
Speaker 7 (25:23):
Seven years? Over seven years, as she.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Owns the house and her personal name, the waiver of
rights is unlikely to be enforceble based on what you're saying,
which means he'd been titled to fifty percent of the home.
Speaker 7 (25:37):
Thanks very much, And just another quick, quick one. I
have another family that I know who she has done
the wills and showing them and given them to her children,
and she's also incorporated a friend who's been very good
to her over the years, who was very good. But
(25:57):
now in the last couple of years there's been no contact, nothing,
and she's tried to make contact and no respect up set, all,
can she with her children just cross out that person's
name and have all of them initial it, or just
have to go through the lawyer.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
Well, she'll need to execute an entirely knew well that
excludes the friend, and she'll need to do that in
the same way that she did the previous will, So
that requires two witnesses, her signing it in front of
two witnesses. I would suggest that you do it through
a lawyer to make sure that it's covered off properly.
But obviously you are able to and principle sign a
well without lawyers, but sometimes if you do it without
(26:39):
a lawyer, it may not meet the necessary legal requirements.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
All right, well, thank you very much.
Speaker 9 (26:45):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
Mary very curious as to where she was standing on
what was coming past.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
It sounded like a very busy road, and.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
There was also a friend right beside who was actually
feeding the lanes as well. So that was a fascinating
inside into some things. Here's the thing about my mum's
When my mom died, I went, well, where's the will?
And you know we had a fold them which is
supposed to have the world. There was no there was
no will, and that the lawyers didn't have a will.
There was no will anywhere. But the lawyer said, well,
we might have actually had a will, and anyway, so
(27:12):
we didn't have a will, and family trust was getting
involved in all this sort of carry on, and eventually
I'm clearing out the house and won't you know it,
I found a big old manilla envelope and then that
envelope was what looked like a will. She had been
signed by one person, but it had never been notorized
by a lawyer, never been seen by a court. It
(27:32):
had been drafted up I think by my mum, you know,
doing cut and paste on the computer, and then getting
a friend to sign it. So then we had to
then find the friend. The friend had was in her
eighties and had moved to Australia, and in the end
we did actually find her and she did actually write
a naugh for David and said yes, that the will
is there and that that I do remember doing this
(27:54):
for Kathy and all that sort of stuff, and eventually
all the legal bods said, all right, it can happen now,
and we just we divided it between the two kids.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
You know, that was lucky. Imagine that he didn't find
it in the folder.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
I know, I know I was the onement. Look what
I found, you know, but you know I sat there
the whole time. Thing mum mum.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
I mean that in itself demonstrates the danger of doing
it with that lawyers, because if a law firm did it,
they would be holding the original will in their deeds
and it will stay there infinitely. And so you can
always go to the law firm to locate a copy
of the will, whereas if you do it yourself, then
you better make sure that someone else knows where it is.
Speaker 10 (28:31):
Right.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
And I was at a rock concert last night with
a sixty two year old friend of mine and it
was all very good and well and all this sort
of stuff. And he's about to buy his first house.
It's a long story. And then he goes, do I
need a will? I mean, you haven't got a will? Excellent, Bria,
welcome to the program.
Speaker 8 (28:47):
Hi, thank you for having me. My simple question is
if you're married under New Zealand law, and I was
for thirty one years, but our assets through overseas in
the cook Ons Rarah Thonga then and the marriage was
dissolved here. My partner came down and dissolved them out
(29:10):
here ten years ago. I haven't gone ever back there
and got my assets, but I managed to get the
properties in my children's names. So how does that work
with assets over there? I mean, it's just a random question.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
No, No, that's all right. That is a good question.
We're talking about what's essentially a jurisdiction issue. New Zealand
will deal with anything that is what we call movable.
So there's a distinction between moveable assets and immovable assets.
So anything immovable is basically real estate, land, a section
or a house. So anything like that that's situated in
(29:47):
Raratong and New Zealand will not deal with. That will
need to be dealt with in Raratonga.
Speaker 8 (29:52):
Right, I've done, right.
Speaker 3 (29:54):
Anything else in terms of shares, investments, companies, et cetera,
the New Zealand court can deal with that. It just
depends on where the parties live, what their connection to
New Zealand wast and the New Zealand Court will look
at that and then decide whether they should assume jurisdiction
essentially over those assets or whether it's better for those
assets to be dealt with through the laws of Raratonga.
Speaker 8 (30:18):
Right, Okay, But you know, divorce is horrible in the
thirty one years and it's grief. It's like someone's diary
for me. And how do you how what rights do
you have? Like I've got so much personal stuff there
that I've never gone back and got and how do
I deal with that?
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Well, if there are things you have in Raratonga that
you want to go and collect, it might be worth
going to see a lawyer in Raratonga to get some
advice over there about how you can physically collect your items.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
And wouldn't be like notorizing an inventory of what you
believe is your property?
Speaker 9 (30:53):
That could be.
Speaker 3 (30:56):
Jack, I mean, that would be the first step. We
need to identify exactly what assets we're talking about here.
What assets.
Speaker 8 (31:01):
There's quite a lot of family assets, right, I mean,
you know, valuable asses. Oh that's okay. Well, thank you
for your help, no problem, Brier, thank you.
Speaker 9 (31:11):
But it's just a.
Speaker 8 (31:12):
Careful for me. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Bye. It's all right, mate, Thank you so much for
your call on eighty is the numbered phone.
Speaker 4 (31:23):
Hi.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
I've been seeing a guy for two and a half years.
Speaker 9 (31:26):
This is a text.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
He's still married, lives with the wife and children. For
the children's sake, are my assey's safe. He doesn't contribute
to anything. So here's the thing. This is a relationship
of two and a half years, when does it finally
get determined to be either a de facto relationship therefore
covered in law or you know, boyfriend but they're not
living together, so you.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
Know, great question, Andrew. That three year time limit doesn't
actually start running usually until you move in together or
you start living together. So if you've just been dating
and you're not living under the same roof and he's
still married, it's unlikely that that three year clock has
already started ticking. So your assets are probably still safe
at this point.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
And I presume that when you start living with someone,
you don't actually and bet you're not getting married. You
don't actually go running off to the lawyer to say
this is the first I want to notarize. This is
the very first date of the fact that we cohabitated
and became a sort of a functioning, workable unit like
a marriage, a de facto marriage unit and all that
sort of thing. Most people don't do that.
Speaker 3 (32:25):
They don't usually it's it's reasonably easy to identify when
a couple did move in together. But the more complicated
cases are where you can still help be held to
be de facto even if you're not living under the
same ruth. That's the exception rather than the rule. But
there are situations where that three year time period has
already started running, and perhaps you didn't realize it because
(32:47):
you weren't living under the same ruth. But as I say,
those exceptional circumstances, most of the time, once you move
in together, that's when the clock starts running for the
three year time period.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Good stuff. Oh, eight hundred and eighty ten eighty is
a number, third ninety two, ninety two. It's a text
if you wish. This is news talk SEB afternoon to you.
I'm Andrew Dickinson Studio with Share in Change of a
family and relationship property lawyer talking about divorce and has
said assets and what to do and how to get
through without losing your mind. And Murray joins us. Now Hella, Murray,
(33:18):
oh hi, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 9 (33:21):
And working on a Sunday afternoon for us.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Thank you for your appreciation. Murray.
Speaker 9 (33:27):
When you get to my age, you appreciate everything that
people do. Yeah, No, I just wonder what the story
about Truster is if you if you've got a couple
of properties, how can you transfer that to a trust?
Is there a limit you can do each year or.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
Well, the thing is that trusts are a complex area,
but the laws developed in such a way that you
actually can't transfer your assets to a trust for the
purpose of trying to prevent a relationship property claim is that.
Speaker 9 (33:56):
You're no, no, no, we just got property that we'd
like to put in a trust and include the children
having easier you pass away in.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
I mean, that's the main reason that people have trusts
these days, because they've done away with gift duty and
stamp duty and the like. So the main reason is
that people want to provide for the next generation and
generations to come in a trust structure makes it simpler
to I mean, you should probably get legal advice on
the best way to structure that.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
But that's where you actually name your children as beneficiaries
of the trust.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
Absolutely, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
But because a lot of questions come about when those
children themselves get into relationships and then other people are
then making claims on their beneficiary status under the trust exactly.
Speaker 3 (34:44):
This is where it gets complicated and a lot.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Of parents are actually putting the kids in the trust
and hoping that the trust means that that's the only
people who benefit from it because they don't like the
in law.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
Absolutely, that's exactly right. And there are ways to structure
your trusts to ensure that beneficiaries essentially into into prenuptial
agreements in order to receive any distribution from the trust
and the like, so you could make sure, I mean,
on the face of it, if a spouse or partner,
if a child in a relationship gets something from a trust,
if they keep it separate, if it's money and they
(35:16):
open up a new bank account and leave the money
in a bank account and don't touch it, then it's
probably going to be safe. But if they use it
for anything, if they use it to buy a house,
or it gets mixed up in other joint funds, then
that's where your risky areas are. And of course they're
going to use the money. So I think there are
protections you probably do want to be putting in place, right.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
Mary, thank you so much for your call, mate, and
we're joined out by Maria. Hello, Maria, Hello.
Speaker 11 (35:40):
I'm just ringing to ask what would happen if you
can't agree on a separation date, like there's a five
year difference.
Speaker 3 (35:48):
Very interesting question, Maria. I've had court hearings to determine
what the date of separation is, because it's not it's
a factual assessment. There's a number of different factors that
a judge or a court would look at to determine
when a couple separated. I mean, the most part, it's
looking at, okay, how did this couple operate when they
(36:09):
were in a relationship, and at what point did things
change or at what point did they start operating differently
or living different lives or moving into separate bedrooms or
one person moving out of the property. So it very
much is a factual assessment. It's not a it's not
a straightforward answer. Unfortunately. You'd look at the two dates
(36:30):
that are five years apart and look at exactly how
you were operating at as at those two dates, and
then then you have to bring proof absolutely, and the
proof is your word. So if you're in court, then
you'd be giving sworn statements about what the factual state
of events was, and if you couldn't agree, and you
did have to go through a court hearing, then you'd
(36:51):
be cross examined on the evidence that you've given you
in your affidavits and sworn statements.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
And then but remember what I said before about the
paper trail. If you having to turn up to court
with your word and you also have an email that
where you wrote to yourself or you wrote to your
lawyer or whatever and said we kind of agreed on
a date of separation.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Being this, I think that can help. It's just that
that shows what happened at one point in time. But
things can then change. So if one person is saying
they separated five years later, they could be saying, yes,
that was true at the time, but this, this, and
this happened since then, and that made that email redundant.
So it does get a bit's actually complicated.
Speaker 11 (37:31):
Right, And if you still can't can the judge make
his own decision?
Speaker 3 (37:37):
The judge would if you had to go to court
if you couldn't agree, then the judge would make a
decision about what the date of separation was. And then
that's how you would assess what assets each of you
are entitled to.
Speaker 11 (37:49):
So if you if you say one person's got a
share portfolio, do they have to prove evidence or can
they just say I've got X amount of shares.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
Oh no, you'd have to provide full disclosure. If you've
got a share portfolio, you're going to need to provide
statements showing that you've got that investment.
Speaker 11 (38:08):
And what's the penalty for not full disclosure?
Speaker 3 (38:13):
Well, it would depend on how it came about. If
you needed to get a court ordered discovery order, which
is basically compelling the person to disclose a statement for
their share portfolio, then you could there could be an
argument to recoup some of your legal costs in having
to take that step.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
Right, It's called a cost, all right, Maria, thank you
so much for your call. And you can hear Maria
thinking about it, and that's good. And of course I
asked very special gift share in Chandra Family and Relationship Property. Loyd,
we are back after the break. This is news talks,
he'd be so just two and a half minutes to go. So, Wayne,
I know this is a legal show and some of
our calls have taken a while because legal legal goes quick.
(38:54):
So can you give us a quick question for us? Wayne? Please?
Speaker 10 (38:58):
And thanks. I'm enjoying the panel. I'm married for a
brief period three years with an Australian separated for two years.
She's made a clear who doesn't want to talk to
me or any third party's approach her. She's returned to Australia.
I'd like to get a divorce financially restrained. Do you
have any advice for me?
Speaker 3 (39:18):
Absolutely? I think there's two things that you can do.
If you want to get the divorce, then it moves
more streamlined if you do it as a joint application.
But if you can't get her signature, then you can
just file your own single application for a divorce and
then that gets served on her and then she decides
whether she's going to defend that or not. So there
is a way for you to get the divorce itself.
Speaker 10 (39:38):
Do they find her if they can't find her, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (39:42):
So there'll need to be some attempts made to locate
her over there. I think a lot of process servers
do private investigative work, so the judge will want to
see what attempts have been made to find her. You
can serve her through email with the court's approval, that
sort of thing.
Speaker 10 (39:56):
So there would need to do something I can do
online or do I need to go and get a
professional to do this?
Speaker 3 (40:04):
What the divorce it souf. You can do it on
The forms are on the Ministry of Justice website. They're
designed for people to fill out themselves and then you
just need to get it witnessed by a registrar at
the court or a Justice of the peace and then
you can get it filed. You might need some help
from a lawyer with the server side of it, because
it sounds like that might be a little bit complex,
but the registrar at the court might be able to
(40:25):
help talk you through the process. Because the forms are
designed for you to be able to do yourself.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
People can't run forever from the consequences because they know
it's going to be nicety. Thank you for your call, Wayne,
and I thank you sharing Chandra for your time today.
Speaker 3 (40:39):
Thank you very much for having me.
Speaker 2 (40:41):
It's a pleasure and that's a pregant. My big thanks
for producer Isaiah Yes Tim Beverages back next weekend with
the Weekend Collective. I'm Andrew Dickins. We'll see when you
see it. I'm actually doing the Drive show tomorrow, so
I'll see you then. Bye bye now jee
Speaker 1 (41:11):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talk ZEDB weekends from three pm or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks ABE.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Again Afternoon to you on this Mantoriki Sunday, I'm Andrew
Dickins in for Tim Beveridge and as Ping Floyd says,
it's time to talk about money. This part of the
program is called smart Money. Now we're going to talk
about divorce and the reason is that statistics have just
come out about New Zealand's latest divorce figures and that
shows a small but very noticeable rise in twenty twenty
(00:42):
five and eighty seven couples divorce. That's up about five
percent on the previous year. Now that is kind of
surprising because the long term trend shows that most of
us are actually even getting married at all, and there
has been a gradual decline in divorce numbers. But no,
it's up five percent. The divorce rate now sits at
about seven point nine divorces per one thousand existing marriages
(01:07):
and civil unions. Seventeen thousand couples got married in twenty
twenty five, slight dropped from twenty twenty four, but if
you look at the long term patterns, the picture is
a lot clearer. The stats New Zealand Cohort data shows
that around five percent of marriages end within five years,
fifteen percent within ten and roughly a third within twenty
(01:28):
five years. So put that all together, that means about
thirty five to forty percent of New Zealand marriages ultimately
end in divorce. You may think it's not going to
happen to you, and then it happens to you and
an awful lot of us. So for those who do
get married, over a third will not last. And when
(01:48):
that happens, one of the biggest hurdles to then leap
as a fair, a mutually acceptable and equitable division of
assets without your wanting to scratch each other's eyes out,
and with the profitability of marriage failure quite high, then
we need to go into marriages aware of of the possibility,
aware of the impact that might have to your money
(02:10):
and your assets if your union collapses. So to talk
about this and to talk about what we should do
to be prepared to be prudent, and to talk about
it when we're going through it. I have with me
a leading family and relationship property lawyer, Barrister Sharon Chandra
who joins us now for Smart Money. Hello and welcome
to the program, and we'll make sure your right make
(02:32):
friend is on there we go Hello, good evening, good evening,
good evening, good evening. So those divorce figures they freak.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
You out, Well, it's not entirely unexpected from my point
of view. I mean the cases that I'm coming across,
I'm saying divorce all day, every day, so I would
have actually thought that the rate was potentially much higher
than that, because that's really all I say. If you're
happy and you're getting along, there's really no need to
come and see me. So those are not the couples
(02:59):
that I come across.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
But it is a reminder to you that no matter
your intentions, no matter how in love you may be
with this person, comes down to the fact that maybe
in twenty years time, you're not going to be together
again because things change.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
Absolutely there's always a chance of that.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
So do people in New Zealand think about this enough
before they actually get married or does it when their
marriage slowly crumbles and collapses, does it come to a
surprise for them.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Well, I think entering into a marriage is like any
investment or business relationship, where you do need to assess
the benefits and the risks and then decide whether it's
a risk that you would like to take. I mean,
no one should go into it thinking that there's no
risk of things falling over all, the marriage failing. There's
(03:48):
always going to be a risk of that in any relationship,
and the question is is that a risk that you're
willing to take?
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Do you think enough New Zealanders realized that under the
Matrimonial Property relations Act as well, that it's two years
and then fifty percent of your assets, even the ones
that you bring into a relationship being actually are co
owned by your partner.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
It's so interesting. I get so many people telling me
about this two year mark, but it's in New Zealand
it's three years. If you're living together for three years
or more, that's when the equal sharing regime kicks in.
I think you get a mix of people being surprised
and others being not so surprised. But it really depends
on the particular asset and question that you're talking about
as to how it's going to be classified once you're
(04:31):
in a relationship.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Do you think a number of New Zealanders go into
these relationships they've got their own personal asset. They may
have been so good that they've managed to get a
little brick and tile. They come into a relationship with
their stuff, but they still think it's their stuff, and
they don't realize that by entering the relationship and going
through the three year period, it's actually our stuff.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
There's definitely that misconception out there, and so when if
a couple in that circumstance does ultimately separate, then it
can come as somewhat a surprise that the assets that
they brought into the relationship could have been could be
at risk of acclaim XERX.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Is that what it gets messy.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
I think there's lots of different ways that can get messy,
and this is one of many ways.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
So the question is, you know, it breaks your heart,
but your relationship is coming to an end, and you're
going in your own different ways, in your own different directions,
and you have to then fairly split assets. How do
you do that?
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Well, most of the time you'd negotiate a settlement through lawyers.
And the reason I say it's through lawyers is because
if you're going to have a legally binding agreement dividing
your property, then you need to get legal advice about
what you're legally entitled to before you sign off on
that agreement. That agreement won't be legally binding unless you've
(05:49):
received that minimum level of advice from independent lawyers. So
most of the time those settlements are negotiated and an
agreement is signed. That's what happens in the majority, so
hold on.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
So if you've actually sat down with your beloved I
we're getting married, and you come up with an eye
between yourselves that you think is fair and equitable and
that you could live with at that moment, it doesn't
really count unless you've actually got independent device that is right.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
There is a distinction between if you're talking about dividing
assets on separation or if you're entering into a prenuptial
agreement style arrangement. But in either scenario, you do need
to get independent legal advice about what you're legally entitled to.
That's the advice you must receive and then have a
lawyer sign off on your agreement. Whether it's a prenuptial
style agreement or whether it's a separation agreement, an independent
(06:38):
lawyer needs to sign off on it on behalf of
each party after advising them of what they're leegally entitled.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
So therefore, do you think it is actually a good
investment for a couple who are getting married for each
party to go away and get some independent legal advice
so they know exactly what the state of play is
before they enter the union.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
I think that can be a prudent way of looking
at it. The most common scenario with people who already
have assets before they enter into a relationship, or a
lot of the prenuptial agreements that I deal with are
what we'd call later in life relationships, where someone's already
been in a long term marriage, they've accumulated assets, they're
onto a second long term relationship, and they're wanting to
(07:17):
figure out how they can protect those assets going into
that second relationship. But most people on their first long
marriage or their first long relationship, this is not on
their radar.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
No, of course, not because they're full of all the
drugs you know that are just flowing through their body
right now, and they're full of happy, happy, happy, joy
joy joy. Without worrying about this. You need to have
you need to have a sensible, you know, unemotional head
on exactly.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
I think you need to think about it in a
bit of a commercial way, unfortunately, which is quite cynical,
but I think it's necessary if you want to protect
yourself financially.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Well on the text bills already actually found that a
bit cynical. He says, you've said marriage is the same
as a business investment, which is true in hindsight, but
the emotions of love are completely different to the emotions
of money or business.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Absolutely agree with that. I'm only looking at it through
one lens, and that's a legal lens.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Okay, Now look we're right here. Eight hundred and eighty
ten eighty is the number to phone at Sharon Chandra,
family and Relationship property lawyer, who can and take your
questions if you're about to get married, Would you like
to know what you should be thinking about or what
you should do? Do you have any questions? But of course,
if you are in the sticky aspect of about to
(08:33):
dismantle the relationship, is there any little advice that you
can give? We can't give specific advice at this moment.
You'll have to get your own independent advice from that.
But yeah, the number is right here, eight hundred and
eighty ten eighty, or you can text ninety two ninety
two if you want a little bit more anonymity about
the whole thing. What are the biggest mistakes people make
(08:53):
when the relationship breaks down.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
I think one of the main ones is it's really
important to even informally get some legal advice reasonably early on,
because the problem that I do commonly see as people
really do quite naturally want to try and negotiate an
arrangement between themselves, and there's no issue with that. It's
just that if you do it without getting legal advice,
(09:18):
and you informally agree to something, even though that's not
legally binding, it can still create certain expectations and if
you ultimately renegue from that agreement after you've obtained legal advice,
then it does make it harder to negotiate. So I
think that if you get legal advice early on and
then you want to go away and negotiate directly with
(09:39):
your ex, that's the most prudent way to do it,
because then you're making sure that you're not giving false
expectations on something that you haven't received advice about.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
And does that mean the old toruism that it's going
to be written down is a very important thing, So
you have a paper trail of proof of what you've
actually decided, because there'll be nothing worse than a couple
getting together and talking about stuff, and we're going to
do that, and then of course the expectations are risen
and all that. And if it's not down on paper,
black and white, if it's not been seen by a lawyer,
it doesn't really exist because you know, our perception is
(10:12):
dependent on the subject.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Yes and no. Having something informally in writing, even through
email correspondence between a couple once they've separated, that that
is in no way legally binding, so neither party is
bound to adhere to those terms. That's why if you
don't have an agreement where each side has obtained independent
legal advice and then signed off that agreement in writing,
(10:36):
anything short of that is not legally binding. So either
of them are free to reneague from whatever they informally
agree to, even if it's recorded in an email, even
if it's recorded on a couple of pages and they
sign it without lawyers, even that's not going to be
legally binding and they can't be held to it. So
that's why I think it's risky to start having those
(10:57):
informal discussions without actually getting even some preliminary legal advice because.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
That's interesting because I know because in this job I
I deal with a commercial war and defamation law and
stuff like that, and we're very, very very strict on
keeping a paper trail. So that and say, with all that,
journalists making sure they keep all their notes of their
reports of a paper trail. But that in itself is
not a legal safeguard.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Well, I'm only talking in the relationship property context. Certainly
in deformation proceedings. I imagine that paper trail will become
quite important.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
It's very important. Exactly. Oh, eight hundred and eighty ten
eighty is a number to the phone and I have
online with me right now, and of course with Sharon Simon.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
Hello Simon, good evening. How are you very well?
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Now? What good? What do you What are you thinking about?
Speaker 5 (11:47):
Well, I've got a scenario that I just like to
explain and see what you think about it. So a
couple meet, they move in and start living with each other.
They both get individual prenups drawn up and by lawyers.
Over the next ten years, two kids come along whilst
(12:09):
living in the family home and other assets are required.
What would be the strength of those prenups if they
were to face a separation that's.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
A really good question, Simon. The thing with these prenuptial
agreements is that they need to be reviewed regularly over
time as circumstances change. The more time that passes, and
the more circumstances change, the more susceptible to challenge it's
likely to be. So the situation that you've just set
out in terms of signing a prenup, ten years passes,
(12:41):
you have two kids, and you acquire other assets. That
sort of scenario could be ripe for a prenuptal agreement
to be challenged.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
So you don't just do a prenup. You have Once
you've done a prenup, you have to do postnups.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Well, I call a prenup a working document. We call
them contracting art agreements in New Zealand. It's a working
document because they need to be reviewed over time. If
circumcis stances changed significantly from the time the agreement was signed,
then that could be a ground on which to challenge
the agreement.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Particularly if the prenup is very specific.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Exactly, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Right, Okay, So but the thing about that is you're
doing well, you're doing well as a family unit, and
suddenly go well, I think we need to go back.
You know, one party says, I think we need to
go back and take a look at our prenup agreement
as well, And that can actually drive a schism between
a couple anyway, because they go, why, we've got the prenup,
We've got the deal.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Absolutely, that's exactly right. It's a really difficult process for
couples to go through because it is actually hard enough
for them to get on the same page and get
something signed in the first place, their alone have to
keep coming back every few years to review it and
assess whether the terms need to be changed or whether
anything needs to be amended in the agreement. So you're right, Andrew,
(13:57):
it is a very mentally difficult process for a couple,
and it's really the last thing that they want to
be doing is pulling this documentat and going back to
their lawyers every few years just to amend the terms.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
So, Simon, are you going to go off and do
a post nup on your prenup?
Speaker 5 (14:14):
Well, this is for a friend that I'm asking you,
But well I would like to ask is does the
court have some clear directions once children come along? And
it's been ten years and so on like it's now
looking more like a marriage. Do the courts have a
sort of clear direction on divvying up the assets in
(14:34):
a certain sort of format or is it the way
the claim is laid out by the lawyers to the courts.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Well, simon, I think that in this scenario it will
be either the prenup is going to be upheld and
those terms are implemented, or if it's successfully challenged, then
the prenup gets thrown out the window and then the
equal sharing regime applies whatever the rules that would have
applied without the prenup, those are the rules that kick in,
which is essentially the equal sharing regime of all assets
(15:01):
acquired during the relationship will will be divided equally.
Speaker 5 (15:06):
Prior to the relationship will be with the hell on
the prenup.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
Possibly, well, it depends on It depends on their status
as to what asset you're talking about, how it was acquired,
what it's been used for, so that that's a very
asset specific inquiry. But at the first stage is either
the prenup is uphowd or thrown out.
Speaker 5 (15:25):
Okay, okay, thanks for your time.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
No problem, Oh no, thank you for your time. Oh
eight hundred eighty ten eighty is a number of phone, Simon,
thank you so much for your call. We have in
studios Sharon Chandra, who was a family and relationship property lawyer.
Any questions about the division of assets as time goes on,
with the rise and rise of divorce and the fact
that so many relationships break down. She's here to answer
any questions you might have. Oh, eight hundred and eighty
(15:49):
ten eighty News Talks B All right, we have in
studio Sharon Chandra, family and Relationship property a lawyer, taking
your calls. Eight hundred and eighty ten eighty is the
number the phone and joining us right now is Tony.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
Hello, Tony, are you.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
What's your question? The Sandra?
Speaker 4 (16:07):
So you have full there with one of your children,
can you take them out of your will?
Speaker 3 (16:18):
The thing with providing for a child and a will
is that there is the law imposes what they call
a moral duty to provide for your children. So it
doesn't necessarily mean that you have to give your child
an equal share of the estate compared to the other children,
but you do need to make some provision for them.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
If you cut from that, and this is an adult child, of.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Course, it still applies to adult children. So if you
cut them out entirely, there's probably a real chance that
they would be able to make what's called a family
protection claim against the estates. If you wanted to structure
your will in a way that avoided the possibility of
them being able to make a claim against your estate,
you probably want to get legal advice about what you
(17:02):
think the minimum is that you need to provide for
them to stop them from making a claim without having
to give them, I suppose, without being crass any more
than you need than you want to.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
But this is interesting because a man's property is a man.
You know, it's a castle is my there's my castle
and all that, and if it's if it's mine, I
could give it to whichever of my children I want.
But that's not what the law necessarily says. It says, right,
the just can't cut them out. You have to give them.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
Something absolutely, I mean, there might be scope. You need
to get some specific legal advice about this, but to
structure your asset ownership in a particular way so that
the assets that you want personally are minimal by the
time of your death, But you need to get some
specific legal advice about how you would structure your assets
to make that happeny.
Speaker 4 (17:50):
I own my own home and I have two daughters
as well, but my son is and my wife died suddenly,
if you know what I mean. You know so it
is quite a for.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
Me, of course. I mean, I'd really suggest that you
sit down with the lawyer and get some specific advice,
because I'd hate to give you specific advice without fully
understanding what your circumstances are.
Speaker 4 (18:18):
No, I appreciate it, Thank you, thank you turning.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
I oh, eight hundred and eighty ten Eightyes number the
phone you can text as well, ninety two to ninety two.
Small charge applies.
Speaker 6 (18:25):
Hello Peter, Yes, Hello Sandra, Sharon.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
Hello Peter. Don't worry that all the time.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
The problem I hate it's Sharon Chandra exactly. And then
you get the andre and the share and it's suddenly
become Sandra. I just did it just before.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
And don't worry, Peter. It happens all the time.
Speaker 6 (18:44):
Mate, Sorry about that, all good, okay, been married for
thirty four years, separated eight years ago. Had a joint
account which we had nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars
in that account. Plus we owned a farm outright together.
The money was in a joint Basically, now I can't
(19:09):
access that account. Thinks she thinks that she has rights
to all the money that's there. I took one hundred
thousand dollars out when eight years ago to start another business,
and so that's all I've taken out of the all
the assets.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
So you're saying you've been separated for eight years, but
the assets have not been fairly and equably split as
yet because she's got control of the of the money.
Speaker 6 (19:34):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
So are you wanting to know how to access the
account or you're wanting to know what your.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Environment has done?
Speaker 6 (19:40):
Yeah? I want to know my entitled I want to
know my rights.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
Basically, where did the nine hundred and fifty thousand come from?
Speaker 6 (19:50):
Two hundred and fifty from when I left work, which
was superannuation redundancy sickly. Then we subdivided part of the farm,
got six hundred and fifty thousand dollars for that, had
some pine trees that we chopped down, got seventy seven
thousand dollars for them, and that basically it roughly ends
(20:12):
up to nine hundred and fifty thousand. So we had
no mortgage and we owned the farm outright with all
that money in the bank.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
And why does your X say that the money belongs.
Speaker 6 (20:21):
To her, Well, it's in her account, it's in a
joint account, but she's changed the past wad. I can't
get into it.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
I mean, on the face of it, it sounds like
the funds would be relationship properly. Are you getting legal
advice about any of this?
Speaker 6 (20:38):
I have been to a lawyer and all I wanted
was one hundred and thirty thousand dollars out of that
nine hundred and fifty and he said, can you not
amicably negotiate it without a lawyer?
Speaker 3 (20:51):
And no, we can't, So you probably need to. I mean,
if you want to get a second opinion from another lawyer,
it might be worth doing that because I'm not sure
if you heard the beginning of the show when I
was talking about the importance of people getting legal advice
before they start any informal discussions, if that's how they
want to do it, and if you're not getting anywhere,
then you probably do need a lawyer to help you
(21:13):
negotiate this on your behalf.
Speaker 6 (21:16):
Okay, yep, all right, pe, good luck, Yeah, thank you
very much.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
It is his money isn't it, And it's her money's
And that's for the wife to just say I can't
even get into the account. I changed it, I change
the password. That seems quite simplistic. So to get round
it is a strongly worded letter from a lawyer freaks
people out? Or are you going to have to get
into some sort of accusation because you know what people
(21:43):
then start to worry about then, is how much is
this going to cost me? And will I end out
spending so much money on lawyers that I don't actually
get any money out out of what I think is
owed me.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
Anyway, Well, I think there's two parts to it. It
wouldn't be unusual for cash and a bank account to
essentially be frozen until the relationship property division is sorted out.
So perhaps what the two concepts that Peter might be
conflating is the fact that the account is frozen right
now means that she's asserting that she gets all of
(22:16):
the funds. But there's a distinction between those two things.
Just because the funds are frozen right now doesn't mean
that they may not be ultimately divided equally. And if
you did want to withdraw some of those funds right now.
Then you can agree to what's called an interim distribution.
You can say, Okay, can we each have fifty thousand
right now, for example, to pay legal fees, etc. And
(22:38):
while we get the negotiations underway.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
It's also the difference between separation and divorce because a
lot of people get separated, but then, of course, normally
because of cost, you never quite get round to getting divorced,
you know. So when you get divorced, then you definitely
have to get the courts involved, and you have to
get the law involved as well. But a separation you
don't necessarily have to. So you know, if you do
(23:00):
decide to separate, should you really then put a time
limit on when you are actually go through with the divorce.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
That's a good point. My advice is generally to try
and get it sorted sooner rather than later. The time
limit starts running after the dissolution or the divorce order
is granted, you have twelve months from that date to
essentially file court proceedings. But I say to people, start
getting it sorted out immediately after you separate. The more
(23:29):
time that passes after separation, that the harder it actually
becomes to go back and trace what's happened post separation.
I mean, I almost feel sorry for Peter because this
has been going. He's been separated for eight years now,
his money's tied up, and a property division still isn't finalized.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
But a lawyer hasn't come in exactly exactly as yet.
So that's what he's avoiding, and that's why it carries on,
which is why I asked the question the difference between
separation and divorce and whether you should actually go through
the whole thing. It's all very difficult, and of course
many people texting saying, well, if you've got problems with
your kids and you've got a problem with your wife,
maybe you should try and reconcile first. So yeah, that's
(24:05):
wishful thinking. Hey, Mary, welcome to the program.
Speaker 7 (24:09):
Thank you so much for taking my call. Just quickly,
I have a friend of mine has a friend who
has been in a relationship for seven years. He moved
into her house and he has been contributing to all
the household comings and goings and bills and things like that.
(24:33):
Now this person went to somebody and got went to
Adlisis and got her partner to sign.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
A waiver.
Speaker 7 (24:46):
Right, So because a waiver of rights because she's not
very well, and she said if she dies, she wants
the money and listen to go to her children. Oh, yes,
he can live in the house for twelve months, but
then he's out. Where does he stand.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
This waiver of rights? Did they each receive independent legal
advice from their own lawyers? Did they each have separate lawyers?
Speaker 8 (25:12):
I don't think so.
Speaker 7 (25:12):
I thought of her loan, so I think it was
just her lawyer.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
Right. So the waiver of rights is unlikely to be enforceable,
which well mean how long have they been living together?
Speaker 7 (25:23):
Seven years? Over seven years, as she.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Owns the house and her personal name, the waiver of
rights is unlikely to be enforceble based on what you're saying,
which means he'd been titled to fifty percent of the home.
Speaker 7 (25:37):
Thanks very much, And just another quick, quick one. I
have another family that I know who she has done
the wills and showing them and given them to her children,
and she's also incorporated a friend who's been very good
to her over the years, who was very good. But
(25:57):
now in the last couple of years there's been no contact, nothing,
and she's tried to make contact and no respect up set, all,
can she with her children just cross out that person's
name and have all of them initial it, or just
have to go through the lawyer.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
Well, she'll need to execute an entirely knew well that
excludes the friend, and she'll need to do that in
the same way that she did the previous will, So
that requires two witnesses, her signing it in front of
two witnesses. I would suggest that you do it through
a lawyer to make sure that it's covered off properly.
But obviously you are able to and principle sign a
well without lawyers, but sometimes if you do it without
(26:39):
a lawyer, it may not meet the necessary legal requirements.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
All right, well, thank you very much.
Speaker 9 (26:45):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
Mary very curious as to where she was standing on
what was coming past.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
It sounded like a very busy road, and.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
There was also a friend right beside who was actually
feeding the lanes as well. So that was a fascinating
inside into some things. Here's the thing about my mum's
When my mom died, I went, well, where's the will?
And you know we had a fold them which is
supposed to have the world. There was no there was
no will, and that the lawyers didn't have a will.
There was no will anywhere. But the lawyer said, well,
we might have actually had a will, and anyway, so
(27:12):
we didn't have a will, and family trust was getting
involved in all this sort of carry on, and eventually
I'm clearing out the house and won't you know it,
I found a big old manilla envelope and then that
envelope was what looked like a will. She had been
signed by one person, but it had never been notorized
by a lawyer, never been seen by a court. It
(27:32):
had been drafted up I think by my mum, you know,
doing cut and paste on the computer, and then getting
a friend to sign it. So then we had to
then find the friend. The friend had was in her
eighties and had moved to Australia, and in the end
we did actually find her and she did actually write
a naugh for David and said yes, that the will
is there and that that I do remember doing this
(27:54):
for Kathy and all that sort of stuff, and eventually
all the legal bods said, all right, it can happen now,
and we just we divided it between the two kids.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
You know, that was lucky. Imagine that he didn't find
it in the folder.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
I know, I know I was the onement. Look what
I found, you know, but you know I sat there
the whole time. Thing mum mum.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
I mean that in itself demonstrates the danger of doing
it with that lawyers, because if a law firm did it,
they would be holding the original will in their deeds
and it will stay there infinitely. And so you can
always go to the law firm to locate a copy
of the will, whereas if you do it yourself, then
you better make sure that someone else knows where it is.
Speaker 10 (28:31):
Right.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
And I was at a rock concert last night with
a sixty two year old friend of mine and it
was all very good and well and all this sort
of stuff. And he's about to buy his first house.
It's a long story. And then he goes, do I
need a will? I mean, you haven't got a will? Excellent, Bria,
welcome to the program.
Speaker 8 (28:47):
Hi, thank you for having me. My simple question is
if you're married under New Zealand law, and I was
for thirty one years, but our assets through overseas in
the cook Ons Rarah Thonga then and the marriage was
dissolved here. My partner came down and dissolved them out
(29:10):
here ten years ago. I haven't gone ever back there
and got my assets, but I managed to get the
properties in my children's names. So how does that work
with assets over there? I mean, it's just a random question.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
No, No, that's all right. That is a good question.
We're talking about what's essentially a jurisdiction issue. New Zealand
will deal with anything that is what we call movable.
So there's a distinction between moveable assets and immovable assets.
So anything immovable is basically real estate, land, a section
or a house. So anything like that that's situated in
(29:47):
Raratong and New Zealand will not deal with. That will
need to be dealt with in Raratonga.
Speaker 8 (29:52):
Right, I've done, right.
Speaker 3 (29:54):
Anything else in terms of shares, investments, companies, et cetera,
the New Zealand court can deal with that. It just
depends on where the parties live, what their connection to
New Zealand wast and the New Zealand Court will look
at that and then decide whether they should assume jurisdiction
essentially over those assets or whether it's better for those
assets to be dealt with through the laws of Raratonga.
Speaker 8 (30:18):
Right, Okay, But you know, divorce is horrible in the
thirty one years and it's grief. It's like someone's diary
for me. And how do you how what rights do
you have? Like I've got so much personal stuff there
that I've never gone back and got and how do
I deal with that?
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Well, if there are things you have in Raratonga that
you want to go and collect, it might be worth
going to see a lawyer in Raratonga to get some
advice over there about how you can physically collect your items.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
And wouldn't be like notorizing an inventory of what you
believe is your property?
Speaker 9 (30:53):
That could be.
Speaker 3 (30:56):
Jack, I mean, that would be the first step. We
need to identify exactly what assets we're talking about here.
What assets.
Speaker 8 (31:01):
There's quite a lot of family assets, right, I mean,
you know, valuable asses. Oh that's okay. Well, thank you
for your help, no problem, Brier, thank you.
Speaker 9 (31:11):
But it's just a.
Speaker 8 (31:12):
Careful for me. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Bye. It's all right, mate, Thank you so much for
your call on eighty is the numbered phone.
Speaker 4 (31:23):
Hi.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
I've been seeing a guy for two and a half years.
Speaker 9 (31:26):
This is a text.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
He's still married, lives with the wife and children. For
the children's sake, are my assey's safe. He doesn't contribute
to anything. So here's the thing. This is a relationship
of two and a half years, when does it finally
get determined to be either a de facto relationship therefore
covered in law or you know, boyfriend but they're not
living together, so you.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
Know, great question, Andrew. That three year time limit doesn't
actually start running usually until you move in together or
you start living together. So if you've just been dating
and you're not living under the same roof and he's
still married, it's unlikely that that three year clock has
already started ticking. So your assets are probably still safe
at this point.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
And I presume that when you start living with someone,
you don't actually and bet you're not getting married. You
don't actually go running off to the lawyer to say
this is the first I want to notarize. This is
the very first date of the fact that we cohabitated
and became a sort of a functioning, workable unit like
a marriage, a de facto marriage unit and all that
sort of thing. Most people don't do that.
Speaker 3 (32:25):
They don't usually it's it's reasonably easy to identify when
a couple did move in together. But the more complicated
cases are where you can still help be held to
be de facto even if you're not living under the
same ruth. That's the exception rather than the rule. But
there are situations where that three year time period has
already started running, and perhaps you didn't realize it because
(32:47):
you weren't living under the same ruth. But as I say,
those exceptional circumstances, most of the time, once you move
in together, that's when the clock starts running for the
three year time period.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Good stuff. Oh, eight hundred and eighty ten eighty is
a number, third ninety two, ninety two. It's a text
if you wish. This is news talk SEB afternoon to you.
I'm Andrew Dickinson Studio with Share in Change of a
family and relationship property lawyer talking about divorce and has
said assets and what to do and how to get
through without losing your mind. And Murray joins us. Now Hella, Murray,
(33:18):
oh hi, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 9 (33:21):
And working on a Sunday afternoon for us.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Thank you for your appreciation. Murray.
Speaker 9 (33:27):
When you get to my age, you appreciate everything that
people do. Yeah, No, I just wonder what the story
about Truster is if you if you've got a couple
of properties, how can you transfer that to a trust?
Is there a limit you can do each year or.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
Well, the thing is that trusts are a complex area,
but the laws developed in such a way that you
actually can't transfer your assets to a trust for the
purpose of trying to prevent a relationship property claim is that.
Speaker 9 (33:56):
You're no, no, no, we just got property that we'd
like to put in a trust and include the children
having easier you pass away in.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
I mean, that's the main reason that people have trusts
these days, because they've done away with gift duty and
stamp duty and the like. So the main reason is
that people want to provide for the next generation and
generations to come in a trust structure makes it simpler
to I mean, you should probably get legal advice on
the best way to structure that.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
But that's where you actually name your children as beneficiaries
of the trust.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
Absolutely, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
But because a lot of questions come about when those
children themselves get into relationships and then other people are
then making claims on their beneficiary status under the trust exactly.
Speaker 3 (34:44):
This is where it gets complicated and a lot.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Of parents are actually putting the kids in the trust
and hoping that the trust means that that's the only
people who benefit from it because they don't like the
in law.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
Absolutely, that's exactly right. And there are ways to structure
your trusts to ensure that beneficiaries essentially into into prenuptial
agreements in order to receive any distribution from the trust
and the like, so you could make sure, I mean,
on the face of it, if a spouse or partner,
if a child in a relationship gets something from a trust,
if they keep it separate, if it's money and they
(35:16):
open up a new bank account and leave the money
in a bank account and don't touch it, then it's
probably going to be safe. But if they use it
for anything, if they use it to buy a house,
or it gets mixed up in other joint funds, then
that's where your risky areas are. And of course they're
going to use the money. So I think there are
protections you probably do want to be putting in place, right.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
Mary, thank you so much for your call, mate, and
we're joined out by Maria. Hello, Maria, Hello.
Speaker 11 (35:40):
I'm just ringing to ask what would happen if you
can't agree on a separation date, like there's a five
year difference.
Speaker 3 (35:48):
Very interesting question, Maria. I've had court hearings to determine
what the date of separation is, because it's not it's
a factual assessment. There's a number of different factors that
a judge or a court would look at to determine
when a couple separated. I mean, the most part, it's
looking at, okay, how did this couple operate when they
(36:09):
were in a relationship, and at what point did things
change or at what point did they start operating differently
or living different lives or moving into separate bedrooms or
one person moving out of the property. So it very
much is a factual assessment. It's not a it's not
a straightforward answer. Unfortunately. You'd look at the two dates
(36:30):
that are five years apart and look at exactly how
you were operating at as at those two dates, and
then then you have to bring proof absolutely, and the
proof is your word. So if you're in court, then
you'd be giving sworn statements about what the factual state
of events was, and if you couldn't agree, and you
did have to go through a court hearing, then you'd
(36:51):
be cross examined on the evidence that you've given you
in your affidavits and sworn statements.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
And then but remember what I said before about the
paper trail. If you having to turn up to court
with your word and you also have an email that
where you wrote to yourself or you wrote to your
lawyer or whatever and said we kind of agreed on
a date of separation.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Being this, I think that can help. It's just that
that shows what happened at one point in time. But
things can then change. So if one person is saying
they separated five years later, they could be saying, yes,
that was true at the time, but this, this, and
this happened since then, and that made that email redundant.
So it does get a bit's actually complicated.
Speaker 11 (37:31):
Right, And if you still can't can the judge make
his own decision?
Speaker 3 (37:37):
The judge would if you had to go to court
if you couldn't agree, then the judge would make a
decision about what the date of separation was. And then
that's how you would assess what assets each of you
are entitled to.
Speaker 11 (37:49):
So if you if you say one person's got a
share portfolio, do they have to prove evidence or can
they just say I've got X amount of shares.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
Oh no, you'd have to provide full disclosure. If you've
got a share portfolio, you're going to need to provide
statements showing that you've got that investment.
Speaker 11 (38:08):
And what's the penalty for not full disclosure?
Speaker 3 (38:13):
Well, it would depend on how it came about. If
you needed to get a court ordered discovery order, which
is basically compelling the person to disclose a statement for
their share portfolio, then you could there could be an
argument to recoup some of your legal costs in having
to take that step.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
Right, It's called a cost, all right, Maria, thank you
so much for your call. And you can hear Maria
thinking about it, and that's good. And of course I
asked very special gift share in Chandra Family and Relationship Property. Loyd,
we are back after the break. This is news talks,
he'd be so just two and a half minutes to go. So, Wayne,
I know this is a legal show and some of
our calls have taken a while because legal legal goes quick.
(38:54):
So can you give us a quick question for us? Wayne? Please?
Speaker 10 (38:58):
And thanks. I'm enjoying the panel. I'm married for a
brief period three years with an Australian separated for two years.
She's made a clear who doesn't want to talk to
me or any third party's approach her. She's returned to Australia.
I'd like to get a divorce financially restrained. Do you
have any advice for me?
Speaker 3 (39:18):
Absolutely? I think there's two things that you can do.
If you want to get the divorce, then it moves
more streamlined if you do it as a joint application.
But if you can't get her signature, then you can
just file your own single application for a divorce and
then that gets served on her and then she decides
whether she's going to defend that or not. So there
is a way for you to get the divorce itself.
Speaker 10 (39:38):
Do they find her if they can't find her, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (39:42):
So there'll need to be some attempts made to locate
her over there. I think a lot of process servers
do private investigative work, so the judge will want to
see what attempts have been made to find her. You
can serve her through email with the court's approval, that
sort of thing.
Speaker 10 (39:56):
So there would need to do something I can do
online or do I need to go and get a
professional to do this?
Speaker 3 (40:04):
What the divorce it souf. You can do it on
The forms are on the Ministry of Justice website. They're
designed for people to fill out themselves and then you
just need to get it witnessed by a registrar at
the court or a Justice of the peace and then
you can get it filed. You might need some help
from a lawyer with the server side of it, because
it sounds like that might be a little bit complex,
but the registrar at the court might be able to
(40:25):
help talk you through the process. Because the forms are
designed for you to be able to do yourself.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
People can't run forever from the consequences because they know
it's going to be nicety. Thank you for your call, Wayne,
and I thank you sharing Chandra for your time today.
Speaker 3 (40:39):
Thank you very much for having me.
Speaker 2 (40:41):
It's a pleasure and that's a pregant. My big thanks
for producer Isaiah Yes Tim Beverages back next weekend with
the Weekend Collective. I'm Andrew Dickins. We'll see when you
see it. I'm actually doing the Drive show tomorrow, so
I'll see you then. Bye bye now jee
Speaker 1 (41:11):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talk ZEDB weekends from three pm or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com