February 1, 2026 • 40 mins
Relationships cost money.
It's not just about date nights at expensive restaurants, fancy shoes, or a new watch for Valentine's Day.
It's moving in together, splitting the power bill, signing on to the rent. At what point in the relationship should you join your finances, and how should you go about it?
Then there's the other side of the relationship - the part no one tends to plan for. The end of it.
Are prenups just for the ultra-wealthy, or should we all have gotten one?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
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.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Yes, and welcome back. This is the Weekend Collective if
you have just joined us. And this is Smart Money
where we talk all sorts of issues to do with
money and we want your calls and participation in eighty
text and this is a round this We've got a
new guest in the studio Hall introduced in just a
moment and well, the opening line is that relationships, Look,
(00:50):
life costs money. Doesn't everything cost money, but relationships cost money,
and actually they can cost you quite a lot of money,
especially when they go wrong. Might not be about, you know,
the cost of a date at an expensive restaurant or
a new watch for Valentine's Day, I mean moving in together,
you know, splitting in the power bills, signing on for
the rent. You know, when do you join your finances?
And when should you actually go about protecting what you've
(01:11):
got already? The part that no one tends to plan for,
you know, and the difficult part. It's like you've got together,
you're in love, everything's wonderful. But hang on a minute.
I just want to make sure that if we do
split up, you don't take me to the cleaners. So
we're also going to touch on the whole pre nup
side of things as well, and actually who should get
a prenup? We want your calls on eight hundred and
(01:32):
eighty ten eighty text nine two nine two and joining us.
She is a family and divorced lawyer at bank Side
Chambers and she's heid to take your calls any questions
you've got around it. And her name is Sharon Chandra
and she's with me now. Sharon, Hello, how.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Are you good evening, Tom? I'm good?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Thanks good. Hey. By the way, let's just find out
a little bit about you. How long you've been practicing
law for a little while. I guess once once you're
in the chambers that.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Yeah, I've been doing doing this for about fifteen years,
specializing in family. Look that entire time reallysolutely.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
What leads you into it? I sort of just.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Fell into it as my first job, and I've I
enjoyed it ever since I started doing it, And yes,
I have become more specialized as the years have gone on,
but I still very much enjoyed. I think that you're
either made for it or you're not. And I really
think that I am God.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
I found a terrifying family law. I thought it was just,
you know, to be avoided. Actually, is there something about
when you were young enough, you know, you're bright eyed
and bushy tailed, and you know you're into new occupation
that you don't Is that almost an advantage because you
don't know, you know, you haven't been through those trials
and tribulations of big relationships yourself at a young age,
(02:43):
and it's easy just to go, okay, are're getting divorced?
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Exactly into it exactly. I think that the naivety when
you're starting out as a lawyer is actually an advantage
when you're coming into family law because it becomes easy
to really compartmentalize and look at the issues objectively without
at placing too much stress on you earlier on in
your career.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Doesn't make you so nickel about relationships? Absolutely, yes, So,
I mean people would assume that if you were going
if you were beginning a relationship, they'd be like, well,
she's going to want to sort out the property side
of things straight up. You could almost get away with it.
Whereas most people the idea of a pre nup or
talking about it's like, what do you mean, why are
we talking about of prenup.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
We've only just got together completely, and that discussion about
whether or not to get a pre nup and how
to open up that discussion is a really difficult discussion
for couples. The process is not easy, and having that
initial discussion is a difficult thing for couples.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Is it more obvious for certain relationships that you should
start having thoughts about how you structure your finances earlier on? Okay?
The reason I say it in such a I don't know,
I'm beating around the bush, aren't I? If I was
divorced and I had a couple of kids. To me,
(04:00):
it's an easy sell on a new relationship saying, listen,
I've got property from a previous relaf, two kids I
want to look after. I'm hoping this will last forever,
but I'm gonna we need to talk about it. Whereas
you know, the first love sort of relationship, that's a
hard soul, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Yes, that's exactly right. This is what we call the
later in life relationships, or the second long relationship or marriage.
It's reasonably common in my experience for people who are
on their second or third long term relationship to be
having that conversation early on and both people being on
the same page, and the process perhaps being a lot
(04:39):
more seamless. The couples who I think have a bit
more difficulty navigating it, as you say, are the people
who are in their first long term relationships and how
they open up that discussion, especially if one spouse or
partner has already accumulated a number of assets prior to
entering the relationships.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Because a lot of young couples, if they've got together,
look if they've both got technical expression bugger or and
they're going to start their lives together. I would imagine,
I mean, I haven't got a prenup because with my
wife and I we've built our lives together, and I
don't know. I mean, I've done a law degree. I
probably should have been ahead of the game when it
came to that. But are there people who are it's
(05:20):
not so important to have the property agreement.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
I think that's right, because I wouldn't necessarily say that
every single couple needs to have a prenup. I think
that there are couples who are perfectly happy to share
their assets equally. Perhaps they met when they were younger,
they didn't have anything as you say, and they built
up their wealth together and they're perfectly comfortable to share
all their assets equally. So couples in that scenario they
(05:44):
don't need to go and get a prenuptial agreement. So
I don't necessarily say that every single couple needs to
have a prenup I think that there are situations where
couples might actively decide that that's not what they want
to do, but it's.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Worth I mean, everyone should have a little bit of
an idea of how the law works. And I think
the problem is you often don't find out how the
law works until you're going, what that's the law? What
do you mean we've been together only two and a
half years, and what they get a share of all
my stuff? Broadly speaking, what are the rules when it
comes to relationships as to when the property equation the
(06:21):
wealth equation starts getting interfered with.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
Yes, I mean essentially it's once you've been living together
for three years or more then the equal sharing regime
kicks in. So that's really the point in time where
you're going to need to share your assets equally. If
you separate after that three year period.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
That's three years. But a new thing was it always
been that?
Speaker 3 (06:42):
You know, it's crazy because so many of my clients
come to me thinking that it's two years and it
was two It's not two years, it's three years. It's
been three years for a very long time. I don't
think it was ever two years.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
What where's two years come into anything then? Because there's
something about I know, it's the separation time. If you
split up two years later, yes, you're done industed, that's right.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
So you need to be separated for at least two
years before you can get divorced, which is on the
other side of it. But at the start, the period
that you need to be living together is three years.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
What if it's two years and six months.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Then the equal sharing regime will not kick in.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Is this legislated for? Is this common? Is this something
the courts have decided or is it something that it's
in statute.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
It's in the legislation.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
So it's three years, So it's three years, two years,
three hundred and sixty four days. If you're getting then.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
If you want to break it now, well, this is
why you can have arguments that lead to litigation about
when the commencement date of the de facto relationship was
because that could mean the difference between whether it's a
relationship that's longer than three years or a relationship that's
shorter than three years, because it's not the commencement date
(07:57):
isn't just the date when you meet someone and start dating.
It's it's for most couples, it's when you move in together,
when you start living together. Okay, we'll move in as
a couple.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
As opposed to just staying the odd weekend exactly. Yes,
m does anyone has anyone found to be in a
de facto relationship when they're not living together?
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Yes, yes, so you can have that sort of scenario.
I mean, some couples might for whatever reason make an
active decision that they don't want to live under the
same roof, but they're together for ten twenty years for
their own reasons. And there are absolutely cases where you're
in a de facto relationship but you're not living under
the same roof. So that's why I say it's the
(08:39):
general rule for eighty percent of couples that will be
the date that you move in together. But that's not
always the case.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Okay, because to my shame, my wife and I before
we got married, we were long distance. Christ aitch Auckland
for I'm almost hesitant to sack because it is something
that's to my shame seven years.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Right exactly, So you and your wife could have held
to be de facto before you actually started living under
the same roof, really potentially have.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Shared all our holidays. We would have made regular trips
to spend time with each other, and it would have
been like, how would you decide that.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Well, there's a number of factors which are legislated for
in terms of the length of the relationship, whether you
do household chores at each other's house, where your belongings
are kept, whether you've got a sexual relationship, what the
extent of joining of finances is, how often you see
each other. It's there's probably I think it's about eight
or ten factors that are set out in the legislation
(09:32):
that allow you to assess when a de facto relationship commences.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Or a judge I guess to assess how often do
you have to I mean, how often do these things go?
How often can you do you actually work things out
lawyer to lawyer client, you know, as opposed to having
to get litigious and actually file and proceedings.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
I'd say eighty percent of the time we settle without
having to go through court proceedings, and I think that
I think to the credit of most family lawyers in
New Zealand, we most of us do take a pragmatic
approach where we are focused on settlement and really the
cases that do go to court are the ones that
are impossible to settle. So that's for my practice, the
(10:14):
twenty percent of cases that do end up in court
because you've made every attempt that you can to try
and get it settled and it hasn't been possible.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
I mean, is it quite easy to sort things out
once to get into the court process or is it
something where it's months years of pain.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
It's not easy, and that's why we as lawyers try
to try to avoid it. Not only is it costly,
but it takes a long time to navigate through the
court process and actually get to the point of a
final court hearing. So you've got the time factor and
the cost factor. And so that's also why even after
cases have been filed in court, the likelihood of them
(10:51):
actually reaching a final hearing is low because cases do
settle even once there are court proceedings. They don't make
it to a final hearing because negotiations can still continue,
or you go to a judge lead mediation and you're
still able to get things settled. But it's a massive
deterrent because filing in court and going all the way
(11:12):
through to a court hearing where a judge makes a decision,
that's a costly process mentally, financially, psychologically for the parties,
and you're wasting at least a year or two of
your life from the time that you've filed the proceedings.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
Do you often have times? I mean, I imagine lawyers
would talk to each other as well, but just when
you look at something and thinking, God, that's look, all
you're doing is you're paying us fees and ruining your lives.
So you ever feel like sort of getting people on
scraff of the neck and saying you just it's a
difficult one, isn't it, Because you need to be able
to give them advice, but you need to take instruction
if their instruction is you know, I want to make
(11:47):
the other person bleed exactly.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
I mean, I see my role as really just being
there to give the advice, and it's really up to
the client. Once I've laid out all the options and
the consequences and the risks of those options. If for
them it's about the principle of it, then that's what
That's what I act on because that's what they want
to do, and they're they're going into what fully informed
of what the consequences are and what risks they're facing.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Are the consequences for joint I mean, I've got one
of the more questions is when, when in a relationship
should you join your finances? I almost wonder whether the
question is when shouldn't you join your finance? I mean,
at what point? At what point is it? It doesn't
really matter you haven't joined your finances, But don't worry,
I'm taking half if we break up anyway. I mean,
(12:33):
is there a point where you should can? When do
you consider that question?
Speaker 3 (12:36):
That's a good point, because, as you say, it's it's
not the joining of finances that dictates whether you're going
to have to share the funds or not. It's whether
you've been living together for that three year period or
longer that's going to dictate whether you have to share
your finances. So you might decide not to share finances,
but that doesn't mean that your funds that you have
accumulated in your own separate bank account are protected you.
(12:59):
If you've accumulated those in the period that you've been
living together, then chances are you're going to need to
share those equally if you separate.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Oh, I guess that raised the question about because you
have property, it remains separate so long as you keep
it separate. So if you have I can see you
looking and going this is getting complicated or ready.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Well, only because that rule, the rule about.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Relationship property separate property.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Yes, because the rule about keeping it separate only applies
to essentially property that you've accumulated beforehand, pre relationship. It
doesn't apply to what you're accumulating in the period that
you're living together. So if you've got an asset or
a share portfolio, for example, you bring it into the relationship.
You don't contribute any money to it during the relationship,
(13:52):
none of your income.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
So if you've got a bunch of money, you keep
it separate, don't put any more money in, just keep it,
just don't even talk about it.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
There's a chance that it could remain separate even without
a prenup, but that's a rare scenario because funds, in
my experience, almost inevitably get mixed, and as soon as
income touches touches that share portfolio, then you're in trouble.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
So if I have, say a million bucks and a
bank account. Let's say I've got two bank accounts and
they've each got a million bucks on them, and say,
I decide, look, bank account number A, that's the one
I'm going to share and mingle and mingle and mingle,
and bank account number b's just a term deposit that
never gets touched. I would like to think that that
would stay separate. But I guess if I suddenly take
(14:37):
money from B and stick it in A, is that
a problem.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
That would be a problem. Yes, oh yes, And I say,
I actually say, don't rely. Don't rely on trying to
keep it separate as your way of protecting that asset,
because that's not the best way to make sure it's protected,
because funds can get mixed without you even realizing it,
and no one lives their day to day life in
(15:02):
that way. So the only way if you really want
to take the million, you've got to do the prenup.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
So you know, you talk about that three years. So
from the beginning of the what's what's the definition we're
talking about when you start when the de facto relationship starts, right,
so you define when the defactor relationship is. What about
if you are mingling money from all your assets and
the relationship doesn't last three years? Okay, we haven't done
(15:28):
a prenup, but legally you probably get to keep you
what's yours? Anyway, do you?
Speaker 4 (15:31):
Because you will?
Speaker 3 (15:33):
That's right. So if it's less than three years, there
might be a bit of unwinding required with the lawyers
to see who's contributed what if there's joint assets, to
untangle that. But you do walk away with what you
brought in and what your contributions were, so you essentially
try to untangle untangle the assets so that you can
each walk away with with what.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
You I can see why this gets quite sporty, even
though it's been a while since I've thought about these issues,
and hopefully it'll never be initial I have to discuss anyway.
We'd love your calls on if you've got any questions
on on basically relationship, property and pre nups. Anything you'd
like to know, we'd love to hear from you. Sharon
Chandra is our guest, she's a family and divorce lawyer.
(16:16):
Divorce lawyer sounds quite full on, doesn't it. What is
what is the what's the nice euphemistic way of putting it?
Speaker 3 (16:22):
I mean the term I use as family lawyer. I
think the term divorce really is a US term. It's
an Americanized term that people use.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
As the Zealan my producer tossed it in there just
to make it sound more sporty.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
In New Zealand. Still use still use that term. People
still use that term.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Well, actually it is.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
You're right.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
Actually, I think it might be a bit of an
americanism because we don't actually have the word divorce anywhere
in our law. Do know?
Speaker 3 (16:47):
We call it a dissolution order. When you get the divorce,
it's a dissolution of the marriage.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
We need to get Dolly Parton to redo that number
D I S S O l U T I. It
doesn't work, doesn't Hey, Look, if you've got any questions,
and actually we do know. I do know having done
this a little bit this chat before that. Sometimes people
like to call for a friend, or for your son
and son or daughter or whatever because you're concerned about
(17:12):
a relationship. Got any questions about relationship property, how to
protect it, you know, how to structure things when people
are falling in love or out of love. Then give
us a call. Eight hundred eighty ten eighty. Sharon Chandra
is with us and we'll be There's lots I'm going
to talk to her about, but you can jump the
queue on eight hundred eighty ten eighty. It's twenty four
past five. News Talk, said B News Talk sed B
(17:33):
right talking. By the way, I did have a chat
with Sharon justin the break about how often she has
to let people know that it's actually not America. We
don't have pre nups and we don't have divorce. We
have a dissolution of a relationship, and we have a
contracting out agreements. But the americanization of it, Sharon probably
spend a bit of time having to re explain things,
do you well.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
I think it's the terminology that most people get from
the US, such as divorce which is actually a dissolution,
and a prenup which is actually called a contracting up agreement.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
I think we need to get in touch with Dave
doubl or Donald Lash and get them to write a
divorce song in New Zealand context. It trying to make
a solution, right, we're taking your calls, Gail.
Speaker 4 (18:16):
Hello, Hi, Hey, this is a bit tricky and I'm
trying to think of how to start this. Just imagine
a young person, say second year third at UNI, had
a property, luckily enough gifted, and they have some flatmates
in and one of those flat mates and turns into
a boyfriend. So if they've been paying a board, you know,
(18:37):
a flat flatty fee, is there protection there in the
sense that it was done legitimately, you know, I bond
the owner that the other younger person who's now in
that relationship with the flatty.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
So flatty becomes lover, becomes partner.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
That's yeah, yeah, yeah, boyfriend girlfriend.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
Yeah, that's in case that lawyers love.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
I imagine, Gail, that's a very that's a very tricky situation,
I think Screen, I think that's actually quite risky. If
the owner of the house doesn't do a contracting art
agreement or a prenup, then they are taking a massive
risk here because the de facto relationship would need to
(19:19):
commence at some point, and then the property that they
own is essentially going to become the family home and
of more than three years passes, then they're going to
need to share that equally.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
With rather than that boyfriend or girlfriend being registered as
a flatmate in the property paying, you know, getting the
bond back when they move out. If they moved out,
blah blah blah, there's no protection there then proceeds the relationship.
Property would supersede any name on a flatty bond. You
got it registered, you got it.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
What if there's say four or five flatmates and there's
just one of the mines and they're all still existing
as flatmates, they've all got their own run, but there's
just some hanky panky going on quite regularly.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Well term, if it's just thank you.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
Please, Yeah, I know in al.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
I appreciate this is not where you were going.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
But no, if it's been we're extending. I'm extending the theme.
I'm extending the theme.
Speaker 5 (20:20):
Gal.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
Yes, it just made me think, God, what a situation
to be in. Even if it doesn't matter if you're
eighteen or twenty two or fifty two, does it complete
eighteen exactly?
Speaker 3 (20:29):
As soon as you own an asset or anything that
you want to protect, then you need to do you
need to do the prenuptial agreements, and it's never too
late to do it, even if you're past the three
year period. It's never too late to have that conversation
with the girlfriend or boyfriend and say hey, let's get
something in writing and signed off. Just because obviously I
brought this home into the relationship.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
Let's difficult to have it after three years. Though, if
they know the law, they'd be like, hang on a minute,
you want me to say that, But what.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
If that property was purchased for that person who then
got the boyfriend girlfriend, so that was purchased through the
family trust. Then they haven't got a chance, have they,
because they're just residing in the property. Oh, by a trust,
it's got nothing to do with them.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
Well, that's a lot more complicated. I wouldn't say that
it's as black and white as they can't have a
crack at the trust, because the New Zealand courts are
becoming increasingly more willing to essentially bust the trusts. So
I wouldn't say that that it's safe just because it's
in a trust. I always say the best form of
(21:30):
protection is the contracting art agreement. Don't ever rely on
a trust as being your form of protection from a relationship.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Okay, hey, Gail thinks, well, there are a lot of
interesting themes there. I would imagine that if there's a
family trust and say mum or dad, a grand granddad
or whatever, they've bought a house for the young man
or woman and they've got flatmates, I would imagine that
probably if there is a relationship in the wind, then
the people who set up the trust probably quite keen
(21:59):
to make sure they'd be in there quite early, wouldn't
they saying listen, well.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
I would expect the trustee to require the son or
the daughter to enter into a prena essentially as a
condition of having the benefit of living in the property essentially.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
Now, okay, if you get married, just a quick thing.
If you get married, okay, bimfah, that's the three years
is irrelevant, isn't it? You know, you talk about what
if you're in a relationship for three years? After three years,
there's a there's a presumption of sharing the assets. What
about if you're married. Does the marriage date of a
(22:39):
marriage have anything to do with it? Or is it
all about the de fact When did the de facto
sort of countdown start? Well, I'm confusing things a bit.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
Sorry, No, no, it's a fair question, I think, because
some couples won't actually start living together until they get married,
and then the de facto relationship slash marriage commences both
on the same date. But if you're already living together
for a period before you get married, then the commencement
date is the date that you moved in together, the
earlier date, not the date that you don't But the
(23:08):
three year rule applies from whenever that exactly, and that
three years would start running from the earlier date, not
from the date of marriage.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Okay, let's take some more calls right now. Grant, Hello, Oh,
hang on, Tom, I think I've got accidentally Sorry, they're.
Speaker 6 (23:23):
Tom, you have sir, yes, and you've got a big head.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Hang on, Tom, I might put you on hold because
I don't think my producers. Don't think my producers spoken
to you. I might have clicked on the wrong button.
They're sorry about that. Grant, Hello, Ah, that's the way.
Speaker 7 (23:38):
I'm sorry. Must be on air.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
Yes, you're you're on air. Right where you go?
Speaker 7 (23:42):
Yeah? Okay, Well, part of my question was sort of
answered by the last but that I'll be more specific,
which is the definition of a defecto relationship for the
purposes of the Metrimonial Property Act. In other words, a
lot of people, well some people these days are keeping
(24:03):
their own together exclusively, we'll call it together for more
than three years. They have their own both have their
own houses. It might sleep over two or three nights
a week, and say on the weekend, but there's one
or two nights during the week when they don't sleep over.
(24:24):
Is that still classes that affect their relationship?
Speaker 3 (24:27):
Good, really good question, Grant, And the answer to that
is yes and no. It depends on It depends on
the specific circumstances of the relationship. And you go back
to the factors that I was talking about earlier in
terms of the amount of time that they spend together,
what discussions they've had about the future, what's the extent
(24:48):
of their joining of finances, Do they have children together?
Are they doing household chores at each other's houses as
their a sexual relationship. How long has this been going
on for are they exclusive? As you say, so, it
really is a fact factual inquiry. And I know this
is a this is a classic lawyer answer, but you
(25:08):
really assess it on a case by case basis.
Speaker 7 (25:12):
It sounds like a legal agreement in that situation might
be advisable.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
Absolutely, that's right. Especially, I think if they both got
their own houses and they want to protect those assets,
then they really should be doing the prenuptial agreement.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Good stuff, Thanks grant Hey. Actually, I would have thought
that the rule of thumb is if you start asking
yourself question about what happens with my money, you need
to be having that conversation.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
Absolutely. I think that if you've got any question whatsoever
about or concern about whether you're going to share any
funds or an asset on separation, then I think at
the very least get some legal advice. You don't maybe
maybe you don't want to talk to your sparsal partner
about it, but at least just sit down with a
lawyer and get the lay of the land so that
you're going into it informed.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Yeah, okay, right, let's take some more calls.
Speaker 8 (25:56):
Susan, Hello, Hi, Hi, I've got a daughter who's who's
worked hard and has saved up enough money using her kisaver.
Speaker 9 (26:10):
To purchase a house. It's going to go through maybe
in about five days time, which we are very excited about.
He has a partner who lives with her and has
done about probably about two and a half years now.
He's a migrant and has no job. He does sleep,
(26:33):
so she charges him board when he can pay it.
And so that's what the agreement will be going into
when she purchases her first home. I would like to
say to her, hey, honey, just have a think about this,
because after three years, he would be legally entitled to
(26:56):
half of it.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
Would that be right?
Speaker 3 (26:59):
Have they been living together for two and a half
years already? Yes, So then the short answer would be yes.
Even if they move into a different place of residence,
then the property that she's purchasing could become the family
home and she'd need to share it. I mean, your
daughter needs a prenup. She needs to get a prenup.
Speaker 9 (27:18):
They're not getting married, doesn't matter, Okay, so it's called
a prenup.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
Yes, and they shouldn't move. Well, I guess they've already
been living together for two and a half years. You've
got settlement in five days. You probably need to work
pretty fast.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
I guess two and a half years. She's admits the
three years is the three things, but she needs to.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
Sort that out well, because that only gives six months
to get the prenup sorted. And I usually say start
thinking about the prenup no later than eighteen months in okay.
Speaker 9 (27:51):
Okay, So can you tell me how expensive is a prenup?
We're just sort of are we talking thousands?
Speaker 3 (27:58):
It usually would be a few thousand. But one lawyer
usually does most of the work. And then the lawyer
that your daughter's partner would be going to see would
would really be reviewing everything.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Because they both need advice, they both.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
Need independence, so he would need to go and get
his own independent legal advice. That's a legal requirement to
have illegally binding prena. But your daughter's lawyer could do
the majority of the work.
Speaker 9 (28:26):
Okay, because he wouldn't be able to afford a lawyer.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
I mean, your daughter could pay for it. This is
pretty common for the person who's wanting to protect their
assets because, as I say, the work that his lawyer
is going to be doing is going to be significantly
less than the lawyer who prepares all the initial documents
and gathers all the information.
Speaker 9 (28:44):
But she trusts them, you know, implicitly. And he said, no, no, no,
everything's fine. I'm just.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Thinking, well, you're doing your job as a mother and
what do we say here?
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Well, I mean, I think obviously, ultimately it's your daughter's decision.
But I think that you're on the right track, and
I think that this is a situation where you probably
want to be listening to your mother.
Speaker 9 (29:12):
Yeah, so he can claim after three years, he can
claim half dead house is his.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
He might be able to, Yes, he will have a
claim on it. As to how that's settled, who knows?
Is that fair enough to say?
Speaker 3 (29:25):
I think that's fair.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Yeah, So you that you are wise. You just need
to be diplomatic, Susan, as you knows as the sort
of mother mother in law figure.
Speaker 3 (29:39):
I mean, you might want to find out what your
daughter's reluctance is and then try and work through that.
For example, if she doesn't want to pay for the
cost of a lawyer, then perhaps it's something that she
can get some assistance with, or.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
You know, is she aware of this issue she is
it something that you had a conversation with her about already?
Speaker 9 (29:57):
Honey, I think you can claim on the house. She
said no, he wouldn't do that, Mum, because we've had
a chat and he just knows. And I'm just thinking,
you know.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
Yeah, Honestly, no one thinks they're going to get separated.
No one thinks that they're related. That's that it's going
to happen to them, and it happens.
Speaker 9 (30:14):
It does. And the thing is is that, you know,
I mean, she's going to be mortgaged up to the hilt,
and I mean it's her first day of the home
and I just would like to see it all end.
If it is going to if it's going to end,
I want it to end really nicely for her. And
if it's not going to end, it doesn't really matter, doesn't.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
That's exactly right, And I just wouldn't take the chance.
Why take the chance, you know?
Speaker 2 (30:39):
Okay, So good call, and look, the good thing is
you've had some initial just casual legal advice, which is
you know, and it hasn't cost your sin. So sorry,
all the best, all the best. Look, I know we've
made light of that, but these are serious issues.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
That's a really tricky situation. That was it, Gail that
Gales Susan.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Yes, right, actually tell you what we need to take
a break. We'll try and squeezed as many calls. I've
got a few texts. In fact, there's one we're going
to just quickly discuss on inheritances within a relationship as well,
because I've had quite a few texts on that and
that is a tricky one as well. Nineteen minutes to
six News Talks, he'd b News Talk said, be we're
(31:20):
with Sharon Changes. She's the barrister at Bankside Chambers. She's
a family lawyer, and we're talking about prenups and protecting
that property in the wake of a relationship that might
actually last long when you think, and then maybe not.
Eight hundred eighty ten eighty Michael, Hello, Hello, Michael, heare yeah, Hi,
how are you good? Thanks? What would you like to
(31:40):
share or ask?
Speaker 6 (31:43):
A partner of eighty teen years and now I have
recently separated, but everything, all the property that was I
have and I had before we got together, has been
in a trust. Yeah, but I've had for twenty five years,
so I was wondering if she had any claim to
the trust.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
How long were you together?
Speaker 6 (32:04):
Can you?
Speaker 2 (32:05):
Okay?
Speaker 6 (32:05):
Nearly tenus. Also, we had a business that was purchased
by the trust, and she worked in the business doing
the office work and things like that, and I had
her on a salary the whole time. She was working
for me, and I paid all the running costs for
the house and all that sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
Yeah, okay, Sharon, is the house trust owned?
Speaker 6 (32:29):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (32:30):
And did you have the business prior to the relationship.
Speaker 6 (32:36):
Well, I was not the one I've got now, but
I did have a business, another one prior to the relationship,
with some of the funds from that sale of that
bought the new business.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
I think I think there is This is a bit
of a I think. I don't want to say you're
in a little bit of sticky water, but there could
be something here because I think with her working in
the business, the business being established while you're together, even
if she has paid a salary, can still create the
ability to make a claim when you've got things like
(33:09):
what we call retained earnings, where if someone's not being
paid a market salary for the work they're doing in
the business, for example, then the business is receiving the
benefit of the difference between the salary being paid and.
Speaker 6 (33:23):
The business was a part time job she had because
of the seasonal's type of work.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
What does she say does she is she looking for something?
Speaker 6 (33:35):
She's expecting something, but she hasn't asked figure on anything.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
I mean, if I were her lawyer, I'd probably have
a crack, yeah.
Speaker 6 (33:46):
Said, she doesn't ever expend on But anyway, well, I expect.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
That your lawyer knows a lot more about the case
than I do, so I.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Think, yeah, but yeah, she would be she'll be getting
some legal advice, I guess, Michael.
Speaker 3 (33:59):
So, and none of this is black and white. So
even though the courts are become increasingly more willing to
break these trusts and order some level of compensation, that's
not that's not an that's not a blank, blank checkbook.
So there are some there are limits to it. And
so even if she has a claim, then it doesn't
(34:21):
necessarily mean that the entire assets of the trust are
going to be at risk. There's a limit on the
extent of the claim that she can make.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
Also, Michael, I think it is worth us making sure
your lawyer is just not giving you advice. That's what
you want to hear, you know.
Speaker 6 (34:36):
It's worth spoke to both the lawyers and they had
came up with the same answer.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
So then right, yeah, And I mean if you trust
them and you have confidence in them, then.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Yeah, well good luck with that.
Speaker 3 (34:48):
But gosh, it is that's that's a really complicated situation.
I don't envy that scenario at all.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
In fact, that is a difficult one where people have
a trust in a property they live in. It's a
family sort of home, but then you invite someone and
it's a long term relationship, and then you're saying we'll
hang on.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
This is all in try just stuffed, Honestly, Tim, This
is what I'm dealing with on a daily basis, these
issues around trusts and the complexities around that, because the
legislation isn't equipped to deal with the claims against trusts.
So you've got the courts who are establishing cases and
precedents to lay out and carve out the rules around
(35:26):
what claims you can make. But you're essentially cobbling together
a number of different pieces of legislation. There's not one
piece of legislation we can turn to to say, Okay,
how are we going to deal with this trust? It's
actually it's a shambles. And the Law Commission did do
a review of the Property Relationships Act a number of
years ago, and part of their recommendations was to overhaul
(35:48):
this area of the law. But it just it doesn't
seem to be it's.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Not an election issue, right exactly. It actually would never
be an election issue because no one likes to think
they're going to be going to affect them, but they
don't know how much tax they're paying in our care. Wow,
just quickly, before we take the break inheritances, if somebody
receives now let's just say long term relationship, you together,
you have received an inheritance and you want to keep
(36:14):
it for yourself because so don't know. That's a tricky
one as well, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (36:19):
Well, the starting point with inheritances is that they are
separate property unless they get intermingled. So if we're going
back to you know, the example we were talking about earlier,
where you receive a lump sum of funds, you open
up a new bank account that has no other funds
in it, You put the money in there and do
nothing with it, then there's a real chance that those
(36:41):
funds would remain separate property because there hasn't been any intermingling.
But most people don't do that.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
Okay, what if you take some money out and to
use it to pay for a family holiday, Well then
the money's gone, so all of it.
Speaker 3 (36:54):
Whatever, If you've used all.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Of that no, No, if you've used say I've got
a million bucks, but there's fifty thousand dollars I've taken
out and put into the family account to pay for
a nice family holiday for all of us.
Speaker 3 (37:03):
Yes, so the fifty gone okay, And then it depends
what you've done with the rest of it. Just left
it lifted in the bank account, then those funds could
still be safe.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Get some legal advice. It's ten to six cost. Time
flies when you're having fun. Ten to six News Talks
d B News Talk said, be where with Sharon Chandra.
I'm not sure how much time we've got left if
we've got a reconcise question from Shane.
Speaker 5 (37:25):
Hello, good idea. It's pretty complicated. But me and my
partner were then the year for twenty eight years, and
when I first knew that we lived in Auckland. Anyway,
we brought a holiday home in Cable Bay up north
and we slowly there was a section and then we
slowly did it up and put a house on there,
(37:47):
and then we've acually moved there. And my wife has
a trust that was set up when your husband had
an axcientent and was brained them as But anyway, I
never saw any of your statements or any of that
or any of the accounts. But I later found out that
like she was having in a tear yeah five years
(38:10):
ago and like and that she was drawing money from
the trust but putting it against the house at Cable Bay,
oh Okay, which made me responsible in the event of
her dying, I would have to find the tur hundred
eighty six thousand to pay back the trust and her voice.
(38:34):
And so I by breath or I brought a little
place in the west coast and out of my Kiwi Saber,
So do you think I should? And beginning things email
saying that they was to discuss the matter and about
the two hundred and eighty six thousand.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
What's your question, Shane, because this could sound like complde.
Speaker 5 (38:59):
Do I stand there where I never saw any of
the money that she was drawing and that and then
how they could us against the place that we brought
together and at the beats.
Speaker 3 (39:10):
Honestly, I mean that this is obviously a really complicated situation.
You need to get some legal advice.
Speaker 2 (39:16):
Yeah, you need.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
You need to go and see a lawyer and give
them the entire background so that they can give you
some because this is really complicated.
Speaker 2 (39:24):
Sorry, I thought that we had a concise call to
get through. I do have a very quick question. Say
you've got a prenup. Say the caller who's was consumed
out a daughter. They have a prenup. She's contributed everything.
The prenup says, okay, this is my house. If we
get split up. Ten years later they're married. He's put
some money into it as well. The prenups is essentially
out of date.
Speaker 3 (39:43):
Yeah, that's a really good question him, because the key
thing with pre nups is that they need to be
reviewed over time. You can't just sign it and put
it away in the draw and forget about it. You
need to review it regularly as circumstances change. I usually
tell people to do a review every three years so
that they can look at how these circumstances are different
(40:05):
from when they initially. So it's an ongoing.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Don't don't just sit and forget exactly. Yeah, yeah, okay,
So look, God, I tell you what. That time has flown, Sharon,
we'll have to get you back. We feel like you
can come back another Sunday, so anytime, no problem. Oh yeah,
and look, Sharon's not looking for you to knock on
her door. But if you it is Sharon Chandra. She's
from Bankside Chambers. We really appreciate your time and Staffnoon Sharon,
(40:28):
Thanks so much, Thank you Tim, and thank you. If
you've missed any of the hours, go and check out
the podcast on the wee can Collective on news Talk
said B and we'll catch us soon. Sundo Out six
is next.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talk said Be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Yes, and welcome back. This is the Weekend Collective if
you have just joined us. And this is Smart Money
where we talk all sorts of issues to do with
money and we want your calls and participation in eighty
text and this is a round this We've got a
new guest in the studio Hall introduced in just a
moment and well, the opening line is that relationships, Look,
(00:50):
life costs money. Doesn't everything cost money, but relationships cost money,
and actually they can cost you quite a lot of money,
especially when they go wrong. Might not be about, you know,
the cost of a date at an expensive restaurant or
a new watch for Valentine's Day, I mean moving in together,
you know, splitting in the power bills, signing on for
the rent. You know, when do you join your finances?
And when should you actually go about protecting what you've
(01:11):
got already? The part that no one tends to plan for,
you know, and the difficult part. It's like you've got together,
you're in love, everything's wonderful. But hang on a minute.
I just want to make sure that if we do
split up, you don't take me to the cleaners. So
we're also going to touch on the whole pre nup
side of things as well, and actually who should get
a prenup? We want your calls on eight hundred and
(01:32):
eighty ten eighty text nine two nine two and joining us.
She is a family and divorced lawyer at bank Side
Chambers and she's heid to take your calls any questions
you've got around it. And her name is Sharon Chandra
and she's with me now. Sharon, Hello, how.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Are you good evening, Tom? I'm good?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Thanks good. Hey. By the way, let's just find out
a little bit about you. How long you've been practicing
law for a little while. I guess once once you're
in the chambers that.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Yeah, I've been doing doing this for about fifteen years,
specializing in family. Look that entire time reallysolutely.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
What leads you into it? I sort of just.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Fell into it as my first job, and I've I
enjoyed it ever since I started doing it, And yes,
I have become more specialized as the years have gone on,
but I still very much enjoyed. I think that you're
either made for it or you're not. And I really
think that I am God.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
I found a terrifying family law. I thought it was just,
you know, to be avoided. Actually, is there something about
when you were young enough, you know, you're bright eyed
and bushy tailed, and you know you're into new occupation
that you don't Is that almost an advantage because you
don't know, you know, you haven't been through those trials
and tribulations of big relationships yourself at a young age,
(02:43):
and it's easy just to go, okay, are're getting divorced?
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Exactly into it exactly. I think that the naivety when
you're starting out as a lawyer is actually an advantage
when you're coming into family law because it becomes easy
to really compartmentalize and look at the issues objectively without
at placing too much stress on you earlier on in
your career.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Doesn't make you so nickel about relationships? Absolutely, yes, So,
I mean people would assume that if you were going
if you were beginning a relationship, they'd be like, well,
she's going to want to sort out the property side
of things straight up. You could almost get away with it.
Whereas most people the idea of a pre nup or
talking about it's like, what do you mean, why are
we talking about of prenup.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
We've only just got together completely, and that discussion about
whether or not to get a pre nup and how
to open up that discussion is a really difficult discussion
for couples. The process is not easy, and having that
initial discussion is a difficult thing for couples.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Is it more obvious for certain relationships that you should
start having thoughts about how you structure your finances earlier on? Okay?
The reason I say it in such a I don't know,
I'm beating around the bush, aren't I? If I was
divorced and I had a couple of kids. To me,
(04:00):
it's an easy sell on a new relationship saying, listen,
I've got property from a previous relaf, two kids I
want to look after. I'm hoping this will last forever,
but I'm gonna we need to talk about it. Whereas
you know, the first love sort of relationship, that's a
hard soul, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Yes, that's exactly right. This is what we call the
later in life relationships, or the second long relationship or marriage.
It's reasonably common in my experience for people who are
on their second or third long term relationship to be
having that conversation early on and both people being on
the same page, and the process perhaps being a lot
(04:39):
more seamless. The couples who I think have a bit
more difficulty navigating it, as you say, are the people
who are in their first long term relationships and how
they open up that discussion, especially if one spouse or
partner has already accumulated a number of assets prior to
entering the relationships.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Because a lot of young couples, if they've got together,
look if they've both got technical expression bugger or and
they're going to start their lives together. I would imagine,
I mean, I haven't got a prenup because with my
wife and I we've built our lives together, and I
don't know. I mean, I've done a law degree. I
probably should have been ahead of the game when it
came to that. But are there people who are it's
(05:20):
not so important to have the property agreement.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
I think that's right, because I wouldn't necessarily say that
every single couple needs to have a prenup. I think
that there are couples who are perfectly happy to share
their assets equally. Perhaps they met when they were younger,
they didn't have anything as you say, and they built
up their wealth together and they're perfectly comfortable to share
all their assets equally. So couples in that scenario they
(05:44):
don't need to go and get a prenuptial agreement. So
I don't necessarily say that every single couple needs to
have a prenup I think that there are situations where
couples might actively decide that that's not what they want
to do, but it's.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Worth I mean, everyone should have a little bit of
an idea of how the law works. And I think
the problem is you often don't find out how the
law works until you're going, what that's the law? What
do you mean we've been together only two and a
half years, and what they get a share of all
my stuff? Broadly speaking, what are the rules when it
comes to relationships as to when the property equation the
(06:21):
wealth equation starts getting interfered with.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
Yes, I mean essentially it's once you've been living together
for three years or more then the equal sharing regime
kicks in. So that's really the point in time where
you're going to need to share your assets equally. If
you separate after that three year period.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
That's three years. But a new thing was it always
been that?
Speaker 3 (06:42):
You know, it's crazy because so many of my clients
come to me thinking that it's two years and it
was two It's not two years, it's three years. It's
been three years for a very long time. I don't
think it was ever two years.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
What where's two years come into anything then? Because there's
something about I know, it's the separation time. If you
split up two years later, yes, you're done industed, that's right.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
So you need to be separated for at least two
years before you can get divorced, which is on the
other side of it. But at the start, the period
that you need to be living together is three years.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
What if it's two years and six months.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Then the equal sharing regime will not kick in.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Is this legislated for? Is this common? Is this something
the courts have decided or is it something that it's
in statute.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
It's in the legislation.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
So it's three years, So it's three years, two years,
three hundred and sixty four days. If you're getting then.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
If you want to break it now, well, this is
why you can have arguments that lead to litigation about
when the commencement date of the de facto relationship was
because that could mean the difference between whether it's a
relationship that's longer than three years or a relationship that's
shorter than three years, because it's not the commencement date
(07:57):
isn't just the date when you meet someone and start dating.
It's it's for most couples, it's when you move in together,
when you start living together. Okay, we'll move in as
a couple.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
As opposed to just staying the odd weekend exactly. Yes,
m does anyone has anyone found to be in a
de facto relationship when they're not living together?
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Yes, yes, so you can have that sort of scenario.
I mean, some couples might for whatever reason make an
active decision that they don't want to live under the
same roof, but they're together for ten twenty years for
their own reasons. And there are absolutely cases where you're
in a de facto relationship but you're not living under
the same roof. So that's why I say it's the
(08:39):
general rule for eighty percent of couples that will be
the date that you move in together. But that's not
always the case.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Okay, because to my shame, my wife and I before
we got married, we were long distance. Christ aitch Auckland
for I'm almost hesitant to sack because it is something
that's to my shame seven years.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Right exactly, So you and your wife could have held
to be de facto before you actually started living under
the same roof, really potentially have.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Shared all our holidays. We would have made regular trips
to spend time with each other, and it would have
been like, how would you decide that.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Well, there's a number of factors which are legislated for
in terms of the length of the relationship, whether you
do household chores at each other's house, where your belongings
are kept, whether you've got a sexual relationship, what the
extent of joining of finances is, how often you see
each other. It's there's probably I think it's about eight
or ten factors that are set out in the legislation
(09:32):
that allow you to assess when a de facto relationship commences.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Or a judge I guess to assess how often do
you have to I mean, how often do these things go?
How often can you do you actually work things out
lawyer to lawyer client, you know, as opposed to having
to get litigious and actually file and proceedings.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
I'd say eighty percent of the time we settle without
having to go through court proceedings, and I think that
I think to the credit of most family lawyers in
New Zealand, we most of us do take a pragmatic
approach where we are focused on settlement and really the
cases that do go to court are the ones that
are impossible to settle. So that's for my practice, the
(10:14):
twenty percent of cases that do end up in court
because you've made every attempt that you can to try
and get it settled and it hasn't been possible.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
I mean, is it quite easy to sort things out
once to get into the court process or is it
something where it's months years of pain.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
It's not easy, and that's why we as lawyers try
to try to avoid it. Not only is it costly,
but it takes a long time to navigate through the
court process and actually get to the point of a
final court hearing. So you've got the time factor and
the cost factor. And so that's also why even after
cases have been filed in court, the likelihood of them
(10:51):
actually reaching a final hearing is low because cases do
settle even once there are court proceedings. They don't make
it to a final hearing because negotiations can still continue,
or you go to a judge lead mediation and you're
still able to get things settled. But it's a massive
deterrent because filing in court and going all the way
(11:12):
through to a court hearing where a judge makes a decision,
that's a costly process mentally, financially, psychologically for the parties,
and you're wasting at least a year or two of
your life from the time that you've filed the proceedings.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
Do you often have times? I mean, I imagine lawyers
would talk to each other as well, but just when
you look at something and thinking, God, that's look, all
you're doing is you're paying us fees and ruining your lives.
So you ever feel like sort of getting people on
scraff of the neck and saying you just it's a
difficult one, isn't it, Because you need to be able
to give them advice, but you need to take instruction
if their instruction is you know, I want to make
(11:47):
the other person bleed exactly.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
I mean, I see my role as really just being
there to give the advice, and it's really up to
the client. Once I've laid out all the options and
the consequences and the risks of those options. If for
them it's about the principle of it, then that's what
That's what I act on because that's what they want
to do, and they're they're going into what fully informed
of what the consequences are and what risks they're facing.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Are the consequences for joint I mean, I've got one
of the more questions is when, when in a relationship
should you join your finances? I almost wonder whether the
question is when shouldn't you join your finance? I mean,
at what point? At what point is it? It doesn't
really matter you haven't joined your finances, But don't worry,
I'm taking half if we break up anyway. I mean,
(12:33):
is there a point where you should can? When do
you consider that question?
Speaker 3 (12:36):
That's a good point, because, as you say, it's it's
not the joining of finances that dictates whether you're going
to have to share the funds or not. It's whether
you've been living together for that three year period or
longer that's going to dictate whether you have to share
your finances. So you might decide not to share finances,
but that doesn't mean that your funds that you have
accumulated in your own separate bank account are protected you.
(12:59):
If you've accumulated those in the period that you've been
living together, then chances are you're going to need to
share those equally if you separate.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Oh, I guess that raised the question about because you
have property, it remains separate so long as you keep
it separate. So if you have I can see you
looking and going this is getting complicated or ready.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Well, only because that rule, the rule about.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Relationship property separate property.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Yes, because the rule about keeping it separate only applies
to essentially property that you've accumulated beforehand, pre relationship. It
doesn't apply to what you're accumulating in the period that
you're living together. So if you've got an asset or
a share portfolio, for example, you bring it into the relationship.
You don't contribute any money to it during the relationship,
(13:52):
none of your income.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
So if you've got a bunch of money, you keep
it separate, don't put any more money in, just keep it,
just don't even talk about it.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
There's a chance that it could remain separate even without
a prenup, but that's a rare scenario because funds, in
my experience, almost inevitably get mixed, and as soon as
income touches touches that share portfolio, then you're in trouble.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
So if I have, say a million bucks and a
bank account. Let's say I've got two bank accounts and
they've each got a million bucks on them, and say,
I decide, look, bank account number A, that's the one
I'm going to share and mingle and mingle and mingle,
and bank account number b's just a term deposit that
never gets touched. I would like to think that that
would stay separate. But I guess if I suddenly take
(14:37):
money from B and stick it in A, is that
a problem.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
That would be a problem. Yes, oh yes, And I say,
I actually say, don't rely. Don't rely on trying to
keep it separate as your way of protecting that asset,
because that's not the best way to make sure it's protected,
because funds can get mixed without you even realizing it,
and no one lives their day to day life in
(15:02):
that way. So the only way if you really want
to take the million, you've got to do the prenup.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
So you know, you talk about that three years. So
from the beginning of the what's what's the definition we're
talking about when you start when the de facto relationship starts, right,
so you define when the defactor relationship is. What about
if you are mingling money from all your assets and
the relationship doesn't last three years? Okay, we haven't done
(15:28):
a prenup, but legally you probably get to keep you
what's yours? Anyway, do you?
Speaker 4 (15:31):
Because you will?
Speaker 3 (15:33):
That's right. So if it's less than three years, there
might be a bit of unwinding required with the lawyers
to see who's contributed what if there's joint assets, to
untangle that. But you do walk away with what you
brought in and what your contributions were, so you essentially
try to untangle untangle the assets so that you can
each walk away with with what.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
You I can see why this gets quite sporty, even
though it's been a while since I've thought about these issues,
and hopefully it'll never be initial I have to discuss anyway.
We'd love your calls on if you've got any questions
on on basically relationship, property and pre nups. Anything you'd
like to know, we'd love to hear from you. Sharon
Chandra is our guest, she's a family and divorce lawyer.
(16:16):
Divorce lawyer sounds quite full on, doesn't it. What is
what is the what's the nice euphemistic way of putting it?
Speaker 3 (16:22):
I mean the term I use as family lawyer. I
think the term divorce really is a US term. It's
an Americanized term that people use.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
As the Zealan my producer tossed it in there just
to make it sound more sporty.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
In New Zealand. Still use still use that term. People
still use that term.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Well, actually it is.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
You're right.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
Actually, I think it might be a bit of an
americanism because we don't actually have the word divorce anywhere
in our law. Do know?
Speaker 3 (16:47):
We call it a dissolution order. When you get the divorce,
it's a dissolution of the marriage.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
We need to get Dolly Parton to redo that number
D I S S O l U T I. It
doesn't work, doesn't Hey, Look, if you've got any questions,
and actually we do know. I do know having done
this a little bit this chat before that. Sometimes people
like to call for a friend, or for your son
and son or daughter or whatever because you're concerned about
(17:12):
a relationship. Got any questions about relationship property, how to
protect it, you know, how to structure things when people
are falling in love or out of love. Then give
us a call. Eight hundred eighty ten eighty. Sharon Chandra
is with us and we'll be There's lots I'm going
to talk to her about, but you can jump the
queue on eight hundred eighty ten eighty. It's twenty four
past five. News Talk, said B News Talk sed B
(17:33):
right talking. By the way, I did have a chat
with Sharon justin the break about how often she has
to let people know that it's actually not America. We
don't have pre nups and we don't have divorce. We
have a dissolution of a relationship, and we have a
contracting out agreements. But the americanization of it, Sharon probably
spend a bit of time having to re explain things,
do you well.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
I think it's the terminology that most people get from
the US, such as divorce which is actually a dissolution,
and a prenup which is actually called a contracting up agreement.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
I think we need to get in touch with Dave
doubl or Donald Lash and get them to write a
divorce song in New Zealand context. It trying to make
a solution, right, we're taking your calls, Gail.
Speaker 4 (18:16):
Hello, Hi, Hey, this is a bit tricky and I'm
trying to think of how to start this. Just imagine
a young person, say second year third at UNI, had
a property, luckily enough gifted, and they have some flatmates
in and one of those flat mates and turns into
a boyfriend. So if they've been paying a board, you know,
(18:37):
a flat flatty fee, is there protection there in the
sense that it was done legitimately, you know, I bond
the owner that the other younger person who's now in
that relationship with the flatty.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
So flatty becomes lover, becomes partner.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
That's yeah, yeah, yeah, boyfriend girlfriend.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
Yeah, that's in case that lawyers love.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
I imagine, Gail, that's a very that's a very tricky situation,
I think Screen, I think that's actually quite risky. If
the owner of the house doesn't do a contracting art
agreement or a prenup, then they are taking a massive
risk here because the de facto relationship would need to
(19:19):
commence at some point, and then the property that they
own is essentially going to become the family home and
of more than three years passes, then they're going to
need to share that equally.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
With rather than that boyfriend or girlfriend being registered as
a flatmate in the property paying, you know, getting the
bond back when they move out. If they moved out,
blah blah blah, there's no protection there then proceeds the relationship.
Property would supersede any name on a flatty bond. You
got it registered, you got it.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
What if there's say four or five flatmates and there's
just one of the mines and they're all still existing
as flatmates, they've all got their own run, but there's
just some hanky panky going on quite regularly.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Well term, if it's just thank you.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
Please, Yeah, I know in al.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
I appreciate this is not where you were going.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
But no, if it's been we're extending. I'm extending the theme.
I'm extending the theme.
Speaker 5 (20:20):
Gal.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
Yes, it just made me think, God, what a situation
to be in. Even if it doesn't matter if you're
eighteen or twenty two or fifty two, does it complete
eighteen exactly?
Speaker 3 (20:29):
As soon as you own an asset or anything that
you want to protect, then you need to do you
need to do the prenuptial agreements, and it's never too
late to do it, even if you're past the three
year period. It's never too late to have that conversation
with the girlfriend or boyfriend and say hey, let's get
something in writing and signed off. Just because obviously I
brought this home into the relationship.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
Let's difficult to have it after three years. Though, if
they know the law, they'd be like, hang on a minute,
you want me to say that, But what.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
If that property was purchased for that person who then
got the boyfriend girlfriend, so that was purchased through the
family trust. Then they haven't got a chance, have they,
because they're just residing in the property. Oh, by a trust,
it's got nothing to do with them.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
Well, that's a lot more complicated. I wouldn't say that
it's as black and white as they can't have a
crack at the trust, because the New Zealand courts are
becoming increasingly more willing to essentially bust the trusts. So
I wouldn't say that that it's safe just because it's
in a trust. I always say the best form of
(21:30):
protection is the contracting art agreement. Don't ever rely on
a trust as being your form of protection from a relationship.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Okay, hey, Gail thinks, well, there are a lot of
interesting themes there. I would imagine that if there's a
family trust and say mum or dad, a grand granddad
or whatever, they've bought a house for the young man
or woman and they've got flatmates, I would imagine that
probably if there is a relationship in the wind, then
the people who set up the trust probably quite keen
(21:59):
to make sure they'd be in there quite early, wouldn't
they saying listen, well.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
I would expect the trustee to require the son or
the daughter to enter into a prena essentially as a
condition of having the benefit of living in the property essentially.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
Now, okay, if you get married, just a quick thing.
If you get married, okay, bimfah, that's the three years
is irrelevant, isn't it? You know, you talk about what
if you're in a relationship for three years? After three years,
there's a there's a presumption of sharing the assets. What
about if you're married. Does the marriage date of a
(22:39):
marriage have anything to do with it? Or is it
all about the de fact When did the de facto
sort of countdown start? Well, I'm confusing things a bit.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
Sorry, No, no, it's a fair question, I think, because
some couples won't actually start living together until they get married,
and then the de facto relationship slash marriage commences both
on the same date. But if you're already living together
for a period before you get married, then the commencement
date is the date that you moved in together, the
earlier date, not the date that you don't But the
(23:08):
three year rule applies from whenever that exactly, and that
three years would start running from the earlier date, not
from the date of marriage.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Okay, let's take some more calls right now. Grant, Hello, Oh,
hang on, Tom, I think I've got accidentally Sorry, they're.
Speaker 6 (23:23):
Tom, you have sir, yes, and you've got a big head.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Hang on, Tom, I might put you on hold because
I don't think my producers. Don't think my producers spoken
to you. I might have clicked on the wrong button.
They're sorry about that. Grant, Hello, Ah, that's the way.
Speaker 7 (23:38):
I'm sorry. Must be on air.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
Yes, you're you're on air. Right where you go?
Speaker 7 (23:42):
Yeah? Okay, Well, part of my question was sort of
answered by the last but that I'll be more specific,
which is the definition of a defecto relationship for the
purposes of the Metrimonial Property Act. In other words, a
lot of people, well some people these days are keeping
(24:03):
their own together exclusively, we'll call it together for more
than three years. They have their own both have their
own houses. It might sleep over two or three nights
a week, and say on the weekend, but there's one
or two nights during the week when they don't sleep over.
(24:24):
Is that still classes that affect their relationship?
Speaker 3 (24:27):
Good, really good question, Grant, And the answer to that
is yes and no. It depends on It depends on
the specific circumstances of the relationship. And you go back
to the factors that I was talking about earlier in
terms of the amount of time that they spend together,
what discussions they've had about the future, what's the extent
(24:48):
of their joining of finances, Do they have children together?
Are they doing household chores at each other's houses as
their a sexual relationship. How long has this been going
on for are they exclusive? As you say, so, it
really is a fact factual inquiry. And I know this
is a this is a classic lawyer answer, but you
(25:08):
really assess it on a case by case basis.
Speaker 7 (25:12):
It sounds like a legal agreement in that situation might
be advisable.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
Absolutely, that's right. Especially, I think if they both got
their own houses and they want to protect those assets,
then they really should be doing the prenuptial agreement.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Good stuff, Thanks grant Hey. Actually, I would have thought
that the rule of thumb is if you start asking
yourself question about what happens with my money, you need
to be having that conversation.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
Absolutely. I think that if you've got any question whatsoever
about or concern about whether you're going to share any
funds or an asset on separation, then I think at
the very least get some legal advice. You don't maybe
maybe you don't want to talk to your sparsal partner
about it, but at least just sit down with a
lawyer and get the lay of the land so that
you're going into it informed.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Yeah, okay, right, let's take some more calls.
Speaker 8 (25:56):
Susan, Hello, Hi, Hi, I've got a daughter who's who's
worked hard and has saved up enough money using her kisaver.
Speaker 9 (26:10):
To purchase a house. It's going to go through maybe
in about five days time, which we are very excited about.
He has a partner who lives with her and has
done about probably about two and a half years now.
He's a migrant and has no job. He does sleep,
(26:33):
so she charges him board when he can pay it.
And so that's what the agreement will be going into
when she purchases her first home. I would like to
say to her, hey, honey, just have a think about this,
because after three years, he would be legally entitled to
(26:56):
half of it.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
Would that be right?
Speaker 3 (26:59):
Have they been living together for two and a half
years already? Yes, So then the short answer would be yes.
Even if they move into a different place of residence,
then the property that she's purchasing could become the family
home and she'd need to share it. I mean, your
daughter needs a prenup. She needs to get a prenup.
Speaker 9 (27:18):
They're not getting married, doesn't matter, Okay, so it's called
a prenup.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
Yes, and they shouldn't move. Well, I guess they've already
been living together for two and a half years. You've
got settlement in five days. You probably need to work
pretty fast.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
I guess two and a half years. She's admits the
three years is the three things, but she needs to.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
Sort that out well, because that only gives six months
to get the prenup sorted. And I usually say start
thinking about the prenup no later than eighteen months in okay.
Speaker 9 (27:51):
Okay, So can you tell me how expensive is a prenup?
We're just sort of are we talking thousands?
Speaker 3 (27:58):
It usually would be a few thousand. But one lawyer
usually does most of the work. And then the lawyer
that your daughter's partner would be going to see would
would really be reviewing everything.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Because they both need advice, they both.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
Need independence, so he would need to go and get
his own independent legal advice. That's a legal requirement to
have illegally binding prena. But your daughter's lawyer could do
the majority of the work.
Speaker 9 (28:26):
Okay, because he wouldn't be able to afford a lawyer.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
I mean, your daughter could pay for it. This is
pretty common for the person who's wanting to protect their
assets because, as I say, the work that his lawyer
is going to be doing is going to be significantly
less than the lawyer who prepares all the initial documents
and gathers all the information.
Speaker 9 (28:44):
But she trusts them, you know, implicitly. And he said, no, no, no,
everything's fine. I'm just.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Thinking, well, you're doing your job as a mother and
what do we say here?
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Well, I mean, I think obviously, ultimately it's your daughter's decision.
But I think that you're on the right track, and
I think that this is a situation where you probably
want to be listening to your mother.
Speaker 9 (29:12):
Yeah, so he can claim after three years, he can
claim half dead house is his.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
He might be able to, Yes, he will have a
claim on it. As to how that's settled, who knows?
Is that fair enough to say?
Speaker 3 (29:25):
I think that's fair.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Yeah, So you that you are wise. You just need
to be diplomatic, Susan, as you knows as the sort
of mother mother in law figure.
Speaker 3 (29:39):
I mean, you might want to find out what your
daughter's reluctance is and then try and work through that.
For example, if she doesn't want to pay for the
cost of a lawyer, then perhaps it's something that she
can get some assistance with, or.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
You know, is she aware of this issue she is
it something that you had a conversation with her about already?
Speaker 9 (29:57):
Honey, I think you can claim on the house. She
said no, he wouldn't do that, Mum, because we've had
a chat and he just knows. And I'm just thinking,
you know.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
Yeah, Honestly, no one thinks they're going to get separated.
No one thinks that they're related. That's that it's going
to happen to them, and it happens.
Speaker 9 (30:14):
It does. And the thing is is that, you know,
I mean, she's going to be mortgaged up to the hilt,
and I mean it's her first day of the home
and I just would like to see it all end.
If it is going to if it's going to end,
I want it to end really nicely for her. And
if it's not going to end, it doesn't really matter, doesn't.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
That's exactly right, And I just wouldn't take the chance.
Why take the chance, you know?
Speaker 2 (30:39):
Okay, So good call, and look, the good thing is
you've had some initial just casual legal advice, which is
you know, and it hasn't cost your sin. So sorry,
all the best, all the best. Look, I know we've
made light of that, but these are serious issues.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
That's a really tricky situation. That was it, Gail that
Gales Susan.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Yes, right, actually tell you what we need to take
a break. We'll try and squeezed as many calls. I've
got a few texts. In fact, there's one we're going
to just quickly discuss on inheritances within a relationship as well,
because I've had quite a few texts on that and
that is a tricky one as well. Nineteen minutes to
six News Talks, he'd b News Talk said, be we're
(31:20):
with Sharon Changes. She's the barrister at Bankside Chambers. She's
a family lawyer, and we're talking about prenups and protecting
that property in the wake of a relationship that might
actually last long when you think, and then maybe not.
Eight hundred eighty ten eighty Michael, Hello, Hello, Michael, heare yeah, Hi,
how are you good? Thanks? What would you like to
(31:40):
share or ask?
Speaker 6 (31:43):
A partner of eighty teen years and now I have
recently separated, but everything, all the property that was I
have and I had before we got together, has been
in a trust. Yeah, but I've had for twenty five years,
so I was wondering if she had any claim to
the trust.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
How long were you together?
Speaker 6 (32:04):
Can you?
Speaker 2 (32:05):
Okay?
Speaker 6 (32:05):
Nearly tenus. Also, we had a business that was purchased
by the trust, and she worked in the business doing
the office work and things like that, and I had
her on a salary the whole time. She was working
for me, and I paid all the running costs for
the house and all that sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
Yeah, okay, Sharon, is the house trust owned?
Speaker 6 (32:29):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (32:30):
And did you have the business prior to the relationship.
Speaker 6 (32:36):
Well, I was not the one I've got now, but
I did have a business, another one prior to the relationship,
with some of the funds from that sale of that
bought the new business.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
I think I think there is This is a bit
of a I think. I don't want to say you're
in a little bit of sticky water, but there could
be something here because I think with her working in
the business, the business being established while you're together, even
if she has paid a salary, can still create the
ability to make a claim when you've got things like
(33:09):
what we call retained earnings, where if someone's not being
paid a market salary for the work they're doing in
the business, for example, then the business is receiving the
benefit of the difference between the salary being paid and.
Speaker 6 (33:23):
The business was a part time job she had because
of the seasonal's type of work.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
What does she say does she is she looking for something?
Speaker 6 (33:35):
She's expecting something, but she hasn't asked figure on anything.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
I mean, if I were her lawyer, I'd probably have
a crack, yeah.
Speaker 6 (33:46):
Said, she doesn't ever expend on But anyway, well, I expect.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
That your lawyer knows a lot more about the case
than I do, so I.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Think, yeah, but yeah, she would be she'll be getting
some legal advice, I guess, Michael.
Speaker 3 (33:59):
So, and none of this is black and white. So
even though the courts are become increasingly more willing to
break these trusts and order some level of compensation, that's
not that's not an that's not a blank, blank checkbook.
So there are some there are limits to it. And
so even if she has a claim, then it doesn't
(34:21):
necessarily mean that the entire assets of the trust are
going to be at risk. There's a limit on the
extent of the claim that she can make.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
Also, Michael, I think it is worth us making sure
your lawyer is just not giving you advice. That's what
you want to hear, you know.
Speaker 6 (34:36):
It's worth spoke to both the lawyers and they had
came up with the same answer.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
So then right, yeah, And I mean if you trust
them and you have confidence in them, then.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Yeah, well good luck with that.
Speaker 3 (34:48):
But gosh, it is that's that's a really complicated situation.
I don't envy that scenario at all.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
In fact, that is a difficult one where people have
a trust in a property they live in. It's a
family sort of home, but then you invite someone and
it's a long term relationship, and then you're saying we'll
hang on.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
This is all in try just stuffed, Honestly, Tim, This
is what I'm dealing with on a daily basis, these
issues around trusts and the complexities around that, because the
legislation isn't equipped to deal with the claims against trusts.
So you've got the courts who are establishing cases and
precedents to lay out and carve out the rules around
(35:26):
what claims you can make. But you're essentially cobbling together
a number of different pieces of legislation. There's not one
piece of legislation we can turn to to say, Okay,
how are we going to deal with this trust? It's
actually it's a shambles. And the Law Commission did do
a review of the Property Relationships Act a number of
years ago, and part of their recommendations was to overhaul
(35:48):
this area of the law. But it just it doesn't
seem to be it's.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Not an election issue, right exactly. It actually would never
be an election issue because no one likes to think
they're going to be going to affect them, but they
don't know how much tax they're paying in our care. Wow,
just quickly, before we take the break inheritances, if somebody
receives now let's just say long term relationship, you together,
you have received an inheritance and you want to keep
(36:14):
it for yourself because so don't know. That's a tricky
one as well, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (36:19):
Well, the starting point with inheritances is that they are
separate property unless they get intermingled. So if we're going
back to you know, the example we were talking about earlier,
where you receive a lump sum of funds, you open
up a new bank account that has no other funds
in it, You put the money in there and do
nothing with it, then there's a real chance that those
(36:41):
funds would remain separate property because there hasn't been any intermingling.
But most people don't do that.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
Okay, what if you take some money out and to
use it to pay for a family holiday, Well then
the money's gone, so all of it.
Speaker 3 (36:54):
Whatever, If you've used all.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Of that no, No, if you've used say I've got
a million bucks, but there's fifty thousand dollars I've taken
out and put into the family account to pay for
a nice family holiday for all of us.
Speaker 3 (37:03):
Yes, so the fifty gone okay, And then it depends
what you've done with the rest of it. Just left
it lifted in the bank account, then those funds could
still be safe.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Get some legal advice. It's ten to six cost. Time
flies when you're having fun. Ten to six News Talks
d B News Talk said, be where with Sharon Chandra.
I'm not sure how much time we've got left if
we've got a reconcise question from Shane.
Speaker 5 (37:25):
Hello, good idea. It's pretty complicated. But me and my
partner were then the year for twenty eight years, and
when I first knew that we lived in Auckland. Anyway,
we brought a holiday home in Cable Bay up north
and we slowly there was a section and then we
slowly did it up and put a house on there,
(37:47):
and then we've acually moved there. And my wife has
a trust that was set up when your husband had
an axcientent and was brained them as But anyway, I
never saw any of your statements or any of that
or any of the accounts. But I later found out that
like she was having in a tear yeah five years
(38:10):
ago and like and that she was drawing money from
the trust but putting it against the house at Cable Bay,
oh Okay, which made me responsible in the event of
her dying, I would have to find the tur hundred
eighty six thousand to pay back the trust and her voice.
(38:34):
And so I by breath or I brought a little
place in the west coast and out of my Kiwi Saber,
So do you think I should? And beginning things email
saying that they was to discuss the matter and about
the two hundred and eighty six thousand.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
What's your question, Shane, because this could sound like complde.
Speaker 5 (38:59):
Do I stand there where I never saw any of
the money that she was drawing and that and then
how they could us against the place that we brought
together and at the beats.
Speaker 3 (39:10):
Honestly, I mean that this is obviously a really complicated situation.
You need to get some legal advice.
Speaker 2 (39:16):
Yeah, you need.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
You need to go and see a lawyer and give
them the entire background so that they can give you
some because this is really complicated.
Speaker 2 (39:24):
Sorry, I thought that we had a concise call to
get through. I do have a very quick question. Say
you've got a prenup. Say the caller who's was consumed
out a daughter. They have a prenup. She's contributed everything.
The prenup says, okay, this is my house. If we
get split up. Ten years later they're married. He's put
some money into it as well. The prenups is essentially
out of date.
Speaker 3 (39:43):
Yeah, that's a really good question him, because the key
thing with pre nups is that they need to be
reviewed over time. You can't just sign it and put
it away in the draw and forget about it. You
need to review it regularly as circumstances change. I usually
tell people to do a review every three years so
that they can look at how these circumstances are different
(40:05):
from when they initially. So it's an ongoing.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Don't don't just sit and forget exactly. Yeah, yeah, okay,
So look, God, I tell you what. That time has flown, Sharon,
we'll have to get you back. We feel like you
can come back another Sunday, so anytime, no problem. Oh yeah,
and look, Sharon's not looking for you to knock on
her door. But if you it is Sharon Chandra. She's
from Bankside Chambers. We really appreciate your time and Staffnoon Sharon,
(40:28):
Thanks so much, Thank you Tim, and thank you. If
you've missed any of the hours, go and check out
the podcast on the wee can Collective on news Talk
said B and we'll catch us soon. Sundo Out six
is next.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talk said Be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
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
The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe
When a group of women from all over the country realise they all dated the same prolific romance scammer they vow to bring him to justice. In this brand new season of global number 1 hit podcast, The Girlfriends, Anna Sinfield meets a group of funny, feisty, determined women who all had the misfortune of dating a mysterious man named Derek Alldred. Trust Me Babe is a story about the protective forces of gossip, gut instinct, and trusting your besties and the group of women who took matters into their own hands to take down a fraudster when no one else would listen. If you’re affected by any of the themes in this show, our charity partners NO MORE have available resources at https://www.nomore.org. To learn more about romance scams, and to access specialised support, visit https://fightcybercrime.org/ The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe is produced by Novel for iHeartPodcasts. For more from Novel, visit https://novel.audio/. You can listen to new episodes of The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe completely ad-free and 1 week early with an iHeart True Crime+ subscription, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. Open your Apple Podcasts app, search for “iHeart True Crime+, and subscribe today!