Most of us are at least vaguely familiar with the concept of pre-nups, with American celebrity culture it is all too common to hear about a couple splitting up and Popstar X being crazy for not having one, or about how B-list actor Y is applying to a Court to overturn the pre-nup.

In Australia our Family Law Act allows for parties to enter into their own private agreements about asset division if a marriage or relationship ends, called Financial Agreements. Couples can enter into these Agreements before marrying or entering into a de facto relationship, during the marriage or relationship and even once it has come to an end. So pre-nups, post-nups and just plain nups perhaps?

Whilst the plaintiff questioned whether the gift to Katherine was dependant or conditional on her being the de facto of the deceased at the date of his death, one of the defendants argued that the phrase, “my de facto wife” was merely descriptive and should be ignored.

The Court held that the Will is said to speak from the date of death. The Court reasoned that because Katherine was no longer in a de facto relationship with the deceased at the date of death, the intended disposition of his estate to Katherine should fail.

So, what do we, as practitioners, consider when drafting Wills for our clients? Are we doing our clients a disservice by describing the relationship of a beneficiary to the client without more? For instance, if a bequest is made to a friend,Joe Blow, of the client, and at the time of death, Joe Blow is no longer a friend of the client, then would the gift to the estranged friend fail? Was it the client’s intent that Joe Blow remained his friend in order to receive the gift? And more importantly, how could one prove that the relationship was no longer amicable?

I suppose if the description of a relationship to the client is just that…a description, then a bequest should remain valid. On the other hand, if it is the intention of the client to only benefit a particular person if he/she remains in the relationship described, then probably the best practice is to clearly state such an intention in the Will as a condition precedent to receiving the gift.

There is no single right or wrong, one-size-fits-all recommendation for everyone, but there are some useful questions you can ask yourself when thinking about who would be the right Executor for your Estate. Some of these questions are:

1. Whom do I trust?
2. Who would be equipped to make sensible, rational and fair decisions after my death?
3. Who would be willing and able to take on the job, and could stand up to any pressure from my beneficiaries?
4. Where does this person live, and how difficult would it be for them to act in the role?
5. How old is this person, and are they likely to survive me or to be fit enough to do whatever is required?
6. Has this person ever been bankrupt, or do they have a criminal background?
7. Does this person have a parent or spouse (or anyone else in their life) who could influence them to make decisions in a certain way in the course of administering my Estate?
8. How “messy” or complicated is the administration of my Estate likely to be?
9. Should I appoint more than one person? If I do this, what do I want to happen if these people don’t get along, or can’t agree on something?
10. Should I nominate a professional person or trustee company, knowing that this might come at a cost to my Estate, and might be disempowering for the loved ones I leave behind?
11. Should I nominate a substitute Executor in the event that my first choice is unable or unwilling to act as my Executor?

If you anticipate that there is the potential for a claim against your Estate by a disgruntled beneficiary, you might not want to nominate that particular person (or any other beneficiary named in your Will) as your Executor. For example, if you want to leave your entire Estate to charity, rather than to your children, you might think twice about appointing your child as your Executor.

Every person (and every Estate) is different, so of course this cannot be an exhaustive list of things to think about when choosing your Executor. We encourage you to turn your mind to what is important to you, and what you wish for your loved ones after you’re gone.

But it was established to the satisfaction of the Court that the 2009 Will had been signed at a time when the testator had already lost testamentary capacity due to certain delusional beliefs which she held. Accordingly, the Court decided the 2009 Will had no effect. That meant that the revocation of the 2006 Will was also ineffective. So the 2006 Will was rescued from its dusty grave, and was duly admitted to Probate. The case also demonstrates that in deciding which Will is valid, the Court makes up its own mind based on the evidence before it and does not simply follow any agreement reached by the parties.

In Williams v Schwarzback the question of which Will was valid was initially hotly contested; at a mediation the parties agreed that the 2006 was the valid Will. But the Court only decided in favour of the 2006 Will when it was satisfied that the 2009 Will was invalid. It did not simply rubber stamp the agreement of the parties, who had to put the necessary evidence of the testator’s delusions before the Court. This is an illustration of the rule that in contested Probate disputes one cannot simply get judgment by consent, even if the parties ultimately settle their differences.

Finally, it is good practice for testators, when they sign a Will, to write ‘revoked by Will dated….’ across the earlier Will; this practice helps to minimise confusion as to the status of the earlier Will. If the later Will is found to be invalid, the revocation is also invalid and the earlier Will is available to be admitted to Probate. The earlier Will may also be relevant if Family Provision proceedings are brought, even if the later Will is valid. So, as you can appreciate, at least in Probate matters, there can be life after death.

Should Accountants be Drafting Wills?

What do you do when a client asks you to draft his/her Will?

If you’re an Accountant, Financial Planner, or a professional other than a Legal Practitioner, have you ever been asked to draft a Will for your client?

Whilst the temptation to be holistic in your services to a client is understandable, this article will offer some guidance, and identify the pitfalls of engaging in a legal practice which could contravene the requirements under the Legal Practice Act 2008 (“the Act”).

A relationship breakdown is one of the most traumatic things you’ll ever have to deal with in your life. Life as you know it is tossed completely upside down, and not only do you have to grieve the loss of the relationship, but you probably have to move, open new bank accounts, learn where everything is in a new supermarket, and sometimes even stop seeing some of your friends because your former partner got them in the split. While you’re sorting through 3 years’ worth of bank statements and trying to get your ex to agree that the kids can stay with you until 2.00pm on Christmas Day instead of 1.00pm, it might not feel like there’s much time to get your head around anything else.

One of the most frequently asked questions by people who have ever filed anything at the Family Court is ‘what’s the hold up?’.

The Family Court process is a slow one, and there are delays across the board - from the ‘simpler’ matters such as divorces, to litigated matters that are heading towards a trial. Divorce hearings currently have a wait-time of about three months. Similarly, it is not uncommon for litigated matters to run for 18 months to 2 years before the trial itself. Tack on another 6 months for the decision to be handed down once the trial has been completed, and you can understand the frustration, with people often feeling like their lives are ‘on hold’ pending the final outcome.

So, what’s the hold up?

One Day…Every Day

By the time this blog has been posted “on the line” (thank you Vince Vaughan) the 25^th of November will have well and truly been gone.

Why is that day so important you ask? It’s White Ribbon Day, the National Day to stop Men’s Violence against Women.

You know, when I sit back and think about this I’m almost dumbfounded. We’re about to roll into 2016 and Domestic Violence amongst both women and men continues to be an issue. Let’s see, we’ve legalised gay marriage in some countries, equal pay for men and women is being championed by many, women are being considered (and are given) jobs which were only once reserved for men, and for God’s sake they have even legalised marijuana in 2 states in America.

You’ve got an opinion? Are you sure about that?

Are you an expert?

If I had a dollar for every time that someone told us here at Butlers, “I think my ex has bi-polar” or “He definitely has narcissistic tendencies. I Googled it and he absolutely fits the description” or “I am telling you, she has OCD. I am sure of it. She just hasn’t been diagnosed yet” or something along those lines, I probably wouldn’t need to be working so much.

Let’s get digital

Today, I went onto a social media website, and saw a photo I just had to share. I took a screen cap of the photo, and texted it straight on to a friend.

Sound familiar?

The technology that’s become a magical part of our daily routines didn’t even register in Marty McFly’s wildest dreams. If you had told the pre-teen me that one day I’d be able to take a photo, view it, and share it with 500-odd “friends” all within about two and a half minutes, or that I could spend my days doing nothing but watching videos of cats on my phone, I probably would’ve laughed in your face – and not just because I don’t think anyone actually has 500 friends. But, somehow, this is exactly the crazy world in which we live.

Viva Voce is not a Ricky Martin song

A wise man once said to me that the best lawyers can take the most incredibly complex legal issues and explain them in simple, understandable terms. There’s a lot to be said for that. It’s not necessarily about breaking it down for other people for fear of a lack of understanding – it goes to the understanding and skill of the lawyer, which ultimately reduces the magnitude of the issues, paving the way to resolution.

So what of these legal maxims and jargon which people love to throw about from time to time? Prima facie this, viva voce that… Or my personal favourite – mens rea. Am I talking about an element of a crime, or someone’s backside?

The Conference

While the title sounds like something John Grisham would write, I can assure it is nothing of the sort.

In fact, I will tell you right now, if you’re expecting intriguing characters with deep rooted unresolved issues, or cliff hangers, you won’t find it here.

The Conference I’m referring to is the Conciliation Conference, which is an initiative of the Family Court as a form of Alternate Dispute Resolution.

I think every now and then it’s important that people are aware of the various processes and steps in the Family Law process.

“Everything is divided 50/50, right?”

If I had a penny for every time that question was asked, or if that statement was true, I probably wouldn’t be working. Where did this myth start and why is it still floating around? Is it something that is just assumed by virtue of being in a couple?

Anyway, FYI the answer is NO; and neither is 50/50 the starting point.

Unfortunately, it appears this guy understood this common myth to be gospel and literally divided everything in half before obtaining some family law advice:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3129366/I-ve-left-half-Spurned-boyfriend-chops-owns-two-splitting-girlfriend-including-car-TV-iPhone.html

Lucky there weren’t any kids involved.

IN CHILDREN WE TRUST

I am now a grandfather and have been practising in Family Law for almost 30 years. Recently I read a poem written by my 15 year old nephew. Isaac brought home to me the true perspective of life through a young person’s eyes.

The reason it had such an effect on me was because it highlighted just how important it is to listen to and appreciate our children’s perspective of emotional situations.

Help! I’m about to be cross-examined in a Trial! What should I know and what do I do?!

Being called to give evidence in court is stressful. Here are some tips which we think are important for you to know:

• Dress appropriately: Don’t wear Louboutin heels or an expensive Brioni suit in an attempt to convey that you’re rich and powerful. Likewise, don’t turn up in unwashed rags in an effort to convey that you’re poor (and so you really need all the money you can get). Neither do you have to dress as though you’re part of the Amish culture if you’re trying to convey that you are conservative and caring. You are not a character, you are you and you are involved in this case. The clothes you wear should not be distracting; they should be comfortable and should simply convey that you consider this an important matter and that you have respect for the court.Men should wear a shirt with a collar and pants. No jeans, t-shirts or sunglasses on the head – this is not casual Friday and you are not at the pub. Women should wear dress shirts and pants or skirts or dresses. When I say dresses, I mean modest dresses. What works for you on a Saturday night out on the town will not work the same way for you in court. Avoid too much make-up and heavy perfume – actually, I think that one is just a general life rule.

The Family Law Act states that children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development including grandparents. Since the grandchildren obviously aren’t in a position to enforce that right and if the parents are not facilitating the contact with the grandparents, it will be up to the grandparent to take action to do so. But don’t just sit there and hope for the best- the longer you leave it, the weaker your case gets.

The first step is to attempt to resolve the matter by way of Mediation with a qualified Family Dispute Resolution mediator. If the Mediation is not successful, then unfortunately you may have little option but to commence Family Court proceedings.

To succeed in the Family Court, the grandparents must satisfy the court that they are significant adults in the lives of the grandchildren and that such time would be beneficial. The court will consider:

1. The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from any grandparent with whom they have been living.
2. The capacity of any other person, including any grandparent, to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs.

In many cases well-meaning grandparents who make such an application to the courts come up against vigorous opposition from the parents of the children in question. There are many reasons for such opposition but alcohol, abuse, drug addiction, family & domestic violence and poor relations between the grandparents and their own children (the parents of the grandchildren) are often at least partially to blame.

If it can be shown that the grandparents have historically been involved in the life of the grand-children, the Court will be inclined to allow the grandparent to continue this relationship despite the breakdown of the parent’s relationship and their subsequent refusal to let the grandchildren spend time with the grandparents.

If you’re not sure what your options are, don’t rely on Heather down the road for advice - make sure you see a lawyer who actually knows what they’re talking about. Little birdies generally cause more problems than not, so set up your case properly from the beginning.

Facebook and Twitter and…Court - OH NO!

When the Facebook craze was in full effect I told myself I would never get an account. The way I saw it was why would I want to be “friends” with someone who I knew in grade 2, where our interaction was solely playing Lego together, and now all of a sudden some 20 years later he thinks that we’re old mates.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a Facebook account. I primarily use it to keep in touch with family and friends overseas and to share my frustration or delight in anything that happens in sport i.e. my New England Patriots winning the Super Bowl this year – Go Pats!

However I’m often both shocked and appalled at the things people post on Facebook these days. It’s incredible what happens when some people get behind a keyboard. While I understand Facebook and other social media outlets are platforms for people to opine about their thoughts, ideas, views and even what they ate for dinner, it is important to be mindful of what you post on the internet, including and especially social media sites.

Mediate! How? I don’t trust the Bastard!!!

Mediation is not about trust but more about understanding betrayal.

Relationships, whether it be in our personal life or our employment and business activities; when it all goes south, how do we approach resolution when we are feeling so hurt and vengeful? How can we get what we consider to be a just result in the circumstances?

Emotional stress erodes our being until we self-doubt and our self-respect seems to be travelling on a different bus. Some of us urge Karma to find the solution. Some bargain with God and/or a less pure entity, but at the end of the day we want it over: EXCISED FROM OUR LIVES; BUT HOW?

In relation to same-sex marriage, we continue to lag behind the rest of the world. Behind 20 countries in fact. Take the United States for example. Out of 50 States, 37 have legalised same-sex marriage. That’s 74%of the whole country, including Alabama. I’m talking about a Bible Belt State that continues to recognise marriages between first cousins, and Australia’s worried about the gays? What are we afraid of? That a union between Mr & Mr, or Mrs & Mrs, will destroy the sanctity of marriage? Given the current divorce rate, I really don’t think there’s any danger of that happening.  

Despite our reluctance to join the rest of the world, there has been some fairly significant progress made in terms of recognising same-sex relationships within our legal system. In November 2008, Federal Parliament passed a same-sex law reform package, which prompted changes to 85 Commonwealth Acts, removing differential treatment of same-sex couples and their children across a number of areas of law. In terms of the changes within Family Law, all States and Territories now recognise that a de facto relationship can exist between two people of the same sex, and that same-sex de facto couples have the same Family Law rights as heterosexual de facto couples.

In relation to that ad which was strategically aired during the Mardi Gras last Saturday. Dear Australian Marriage Forum, the dark ages called - they want their ignorance back. 

First off, that’s a mighty fine looking high horse you've got there.

Secondly, I refer to your comments in relation to marriage equality forcing a child to ‘miss out on a mother or a father’. From a Family Law perspective, I can assure you that having a mother and father by no means precludes a child from an unfortunate and difficult upbringing. I’m confident in saying that I honestly don’t believe that any of my counterparts would disagree with me on that one - regrettably, sometimes we see mothers and/or fathers at their worst.

Thirdly, your comments are not only an affront the gay community – they also offend all those families out there who don’t fit the nuclear mould. For example, single parent families, and families in which grandparents are raising their grandchildren because for one reason or another, the child’s parents are unable to parent.

Finally, I draw your attention to Section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). In making parenting Orders, the Family Court is bound by ‘the paramountcy principle’. This means that in making a parenting Order, ‘a Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration’. In making this determination, the Court must contemplate as a primary consideration the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of its parents. The definition of ‘parent’ goes beyond biological, and can relate to adoptive parents. No mention of gender, no requirement for ‘parents’ to be of heterosexual persuasion. Methinks there may be something in that. 

A nuclear family structure is not a guarantee for a happy family. A happy family is a guarantee of a happy family - it’s as simple as that. Single parent, same-sex parents, blended families, married couples, de facto couples – no particular family structure has the monopoly in the happy-and-well-adjusted stakes.

You may be forced to live separately by choice or by necessity including maintaining separate residences. You may have many reasons for doing this including work availability, care of elderly family relatives in another city or country or to support adult children as they pursue university and career opportunities far afield.

However, if you live separately from your partner, are you still in a relationship and what should happen if you break up? What happens if you have drifted apart?