An alternative to concluding a binding financial agreement (BFA) is the liquidation of the division of real estate by approval decision (through the Family Court of Australia). This applies only to the dissolution of the division of the property after the end of the relationship. Therefore, if you are considering alternatives to a binding financial agreement while awaiting a marriage or a de facto relationship, during a marriage (but before separation) or a de facto relationship, then approval decisions would not be appropriate. Approval orders are submitted to the Family Court of Australia and must terminate financial matters between the parties once and for all. Approval orders are exactly what they seem; The orders that were seized with the agreement of both parties. When your relationship is over and you and your partner have agreed to the billing terms, consent orders may be the appropriate option. Unlike a binding financial agreement, the advantage of approval decisions is that the parties do not need a certificate of legal advice to make them mandatory. Approval orders are also (probably) harder to reverse or vary once orders are made. Under the Family Law Act, a financial agreement between parties to a de facto relationship is mandatory if it is entered into in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, southern Australia, Tasmania, Australia, the Northern Territory or Norfolk Island. If you live elsewhere in Australia and want to enter into a contract to resolve real estate issues when your de facto relationship ends, you should consult a lawyer to find out more about your options. After the start of a marriage or de facto relationship, financial arrangements can be used to assign ownership of assets or determine liability for the payment of debts. When a marriage or de facto relationship breaks down, a financial agreement is a useful way to share assets, including aging agreements, and to specify whether one party pays spousal support to the other.
Some steps need to be taken to make a financial agreement binding on the court This means that we have encountered situations that correspond to the facts of Thorne v Kennedy (2017). The decision expands the circumstances under which marital agreements can be abrogated, particularly in cases where there is a significant gap between income, wealth and resources.