In a recent case of ours, a woman approached us seeking legal advice. In this case, she had been pressured to accept an agreement, due to current financial constraints. The husband had sought to formalise their agreement by way of a Binding Financial Agreement.
NB: Unlike Form 11 Applications for Consent Orders that are filed with the Family Court of Western Australia for the purpose of formalising property settlement, Binding Financial Agreements are not required to be considered “just and equitable”.
For this reason, Binding Financial Agreements are often preferred by parties that have an agreement that is unlikely to be approved by the Family Court as a result of not being within the scope of a “just and equitable” outcome.
In this case, during the parties’ marriage, her husband had been the primary income earner, whilst the wife had been the primary homemaker and parent. She had received significant inheritances during the marriage. Her husband had been earning over $200,000 per year whereas she had not had gainful employment in over 10 years. The proposed agreement reflected an equal division of the property pool.
After securing legal advice from one of our experienced family lawyers, the wife was made aware that the agreement been being pressed by the Husband did not fall within the scope of a “just and equitable” outcome, i.e., she would have received less than her true entitlements. She proceeded on our advice and, with our assistance, was successful in renegotiating a significantly more favourable outcome, resulting in receipt of an additional $100,000 from the asset pool available for division.