What Happens With Join Assets When a Relationship Breaks Down?

When a relationship breaks down, and legal proceedings to split up common property are looming, there are times when one partner will attempt to shrink the settlement by offloading assets or through reckless spending.

In a trick worthy of the world’s greatest illusionists, where once there was an asset, soon there is nothing left.

Cases that have gone before the courts include the taxi driver who sold his taxi license plate, spending the proceeds before the marital assets could be assessed, and a wife who gambled away about $140,000 in joint funds over the course of 18 months.

For the victims of these subversive attempts to avoid an equitable distribution of marital assets, there can still be legal recourse.

While the court will generally identify and evaluate the assets of both parties as of the date of the hearing, there are exceptions.

From the 1980s, the judicial system recognised the injustice of the situation, initially allowing the value of certain assets that had been offloaded by one party to be notionally “added back”.

More recently, the High Court ruled that considering assets that were no longer retained by either party did not sit well against current laws, however that didn’t mean that offloaded assets were no longer relevant.

These dissipated assets can still be considered as “negative contributions”, or the Court can find that for “the justice of the case” they are required to be taken into account.

“Negative contributions” can be considered within the assessment of contributions. Either the party who disposed of the assets can be seen to have provided a negative contribution, or the other party may be seen to have made a greater indirect contribution to the remaining legal and equitable interests.

Not every case where assets are dissipated will be seen to involve an affront to justice and equity, with the individual circumstances needing to be assessed, but in many situations there is the opportunity for legal recourse.

Medical Profession Legal Issues - Chronic Health Issue Showcase

General practitioners are the front line of the health care system, but a legal grey area remains regarding their exact obligations to patients with chronic conditions.

This was highlighted recently by the case of Luis Almario, a western Sydney man diagnosed with terminal liver cancer as a result of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

A trial judge ordered Mr Almario’s GP, who had been treating him since 1997, to pay more than $360,000 in compensation, saying he had an obligation to act to combat the risks associated with his patient’s morbid obesity.

The decision was then overturned by the Court of Appeal, which concluded that the doctor wasn’t required to do any more than tell Mr Almario he needed to lose weight.

Mr Almario was 53 years old, and weighed 140kgs, when he first consulted the GP in 1997. Six years later he was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver and liver failure, which was untreatable and irreversible.

The doctor, who had a focus on environmental and nutritional medicine, believed his health problems were due to exposure to toxic chemicals at work, however that was later found not to be the case.

In court it was argued that the GP should have taken Mr Almario’s liver condition more seriously, including referrals for dietary treatment and management plans, along with appropriate specialists to address the health problems caused by his obesity.

It was suggested that the intervention of specialists and potential surgery may well have been required to save Mr Almario from a fatal disease.

But the Court of Appeal found that the doctor neither had the obligation, nor the power, to do anything more than provide the weight loss advice he did.

While the vastly different findings of the two courts illustrate how divided community and legal opinions remain on obesity, Mr Almario’s case highlights the challenges facing both medical professionals and those suffering from chronic health issues such as obesity.