A woman who worked as a pole dancer is set to receive $3.25 million from her ex-husband after the Family Court ruled against his bid to have their pre-nuptial agreement overturned because of her “false promises”.
The couple, referred to by the court as Mr Wallace and Ms Stelzer, first met in 1998, when he was married to someone else, and moved in together shortly after.
He was 51 years old, divorced and came into the marriage with an “overwhelming pool of assets”. He has a net worth of more than $16 million.
She was 38 years old at the time, “had no assets” and had also been married previously.
He married Ms Stelzer in October 2005, but not before a pre-nuptial agreement was signed, stating that Ms Stelzer would receive $3.25 million if the marriage broke down in the first four years.
They separated after two.
Mr Wallace fought to have the pre-nup deemed invalid, claiming that Ms Stelzer behaved fraudulently by making “false promises of love and desire for children”.
He also said his lawyers did not give him adequate legal advice and make clear the pros and cons of the pre-nuptial agreement. He said that his lawyers had taken only minutes to sign it.
In 2004, the Family Law Act specified that the body of financial agreements had to state that legal advice had been given to clients, and solicitors were required to provide a signed certification.
However, a number of agreements were subsequently deemed invalid because there was nothing in the body of the agreement stating that advice had been given.
But in 2010, wording of the legislation was relaxed and the court could uphold an agreement that did not comply with the technicalities of the legislation.
Mr Wallace argued that his pre-nup was signed before the 2010 amendment and so his agreement should be deemed invalid.
However, on Wednesday the Family Court ruled the pre-nup was binding and that the amended legislation “can have a retrospective operation which is constitutionally valid”.
Professor Patrick Parkinson, a family law specialist at the University of Sydney, said divorce lawyers had been watching the case, known as the “pole dancer case” very closely.
“The ruling means there’s much more certainty about the validity of agreements that were drafted between 2000 and 2008.”
Family lawyer Paul Doolan agreed and said the decision now removed a lot of uncertainty surrounding financial agreements.
“I think it’s a good decision generally and it gives a lot of confidence to the community and to the legal profession, but there are still a host of problems with the legislation and the government needs to fix them.”
One of those “technical problems” includes having lawyers “come under more scrutiny”, as the legislation still allows courts to analyse how solicitors gave advice to clients, despite the signed certification, he said.
“Why would you even bother having the certificate if the court is able to look at the quality of the advice?”
Editor: This extract below, referring to the NSW parliamentary inquiry into provocation, is another example of how important issues are being air-brushed by the media into a one-sided moral crusade.
You may (or may not) have noticed that the female equivalent of provocation, for example the “battered women defence” are clearly protected by these ideologues by the creation of two categories of provocation, the extreme (in other words, if a woman is provoked), and mere words (in other words, if a man is provoked).
I take great issue with the comments of Assistant Police Commissioner Mark Murdoch who said that: “‘Words alone should not amount to provocation, no matter the intensity, ferocity or malice.”
My question to him would be, “why not, when words alone are enough in every other aspect of law and crime?”
With divorced single men having $762,000 less in assets at age 55 than those who have stayed married, and divorced single women having about $645,000 less than women who have stayed married, the research shows a bleak financial outlook for divorcees.
The joint research conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), the Australian National University and the University of Queensland involved almost 7700 households from 2001 to 2010.
It found those who divorce were likely to have had lower household incomes prior to their marriage break-up than those who remained married.
Unless they remarried, the divorce then widened the financial gap.
Editor: One can only wonder why she made these false allegations, but I would add that if it had something to do with her pursuing a sexual encounter behind her boyfriend’s back, then she would neither be the first nor last to have sought to hide her clandestine activity by falsely accusing an innocent third party.
A 21-year-old Sydney woman has been sentenced to 15 days jail in Phuket for falsely accusing a local taxi driver of assaulting her.
The woman, whose name has not been released, told Thai police she was the victim of an assault early on Sunday on the resort island and that two other Thai men restrained her during the attack.
The report, confirmed by Phuket Provincial Court sources, said the woman initially told the officers she become separated from her boyfriend in a nightclub area of Patong early on Sunday morning.
She said she was taking a taxi back to her resort when the driver picked up two other men.
She alleged he then drove to a secluded area and assaulted her while the other men held her down. Afterwards, they took her passport and cash.
A six-year-old boy will live with his father in Australia while his brother, two, will live in Canada with their mother.
The woman had abducted the older son and was ordered to return him under the rules of the Hague Convention.
The case has similarities to the battle involving four sisters whose Queensland mother has refused to take them “home” to Italy where they were brought up and where their Italian father lives. The girls remain in Queensland pending a High Court challenge brought by their maternal aunt.
In the latest case, Justice Christine Dawe said, while there was a presumption it was in the best interests of children if their parents had equal shared responsibility, this was an exception.
Not since the Constitutional crisis of 1975, when an elected Australian Prime Minister was spectacularly sacked by the very same Governor General that Labor itself appointed, has a Labor-led government limped from one self-inflicted crisis to another, in such monotonous repetition, as it does today.
For many reading the papers of the last few days, one would be forgiven for the misconception that Labor’s woes began with Julia Gillard’s broken promise on the Carbon tax, or her lack of political judgment on the asylum seeker situation, or even her political assassination of a first term Labor Prime Minister.
In fact the seeds of Labor’s demise were sown well before Julia Gillard even became Prime Minister……….back to when Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister blinked on the carbon Tax mark I, while Opposition leader Tony Abbott, who many thought was on a hiding to nothing given public opinion at the time, kept his eyes wide open.
……..For a politician openly reviled by the ugly underbelly of many of Australia’s liberal/feminist organisations, one cannot deny that Tony Abbott has shown tremendous courage in staring down an at-the-time popular policy put forward by an at-the-time popular Prime Minister, and the outcome has left almost everyone surprised, except perhaps for Tony Abbott.
However, as a man and as a father, I must add that my opinion on Tony Abbott as a politician of conviction does not find favour in one select community within Australia, that being the ever growing list of separated fathers who have little or no contact with their children post-divorce.
Jake Roberts exclusively for Ezine4Males
Read Full Article at: Ezine4Males
“Did you know you were making a mistake as you were walking down the aisle?” This was the question Jennifer Gauvain and Anne Milford asked 1000 women as research for their book How Not to Marry the Wrong Man.
A staggering 30 per cent of respondents said ‘yes’ they did know. But, they did it anyway.
Gauvain, a licensed clinical social worker, wrote about it in this blog for the Huffington Post. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given divorce rates in the US are around 40 per cent – versus about one third in Australia – it caused an uproar.
Of the thousand-odd comments on the article, some that captured the general mood included this:
“Marriage is for idots and poor people. Divorce is too easy for women. It’s not hard for a woman to navigate a divorce. The only thing she’s navigating is how much of this man’s hard earned money she’s going to take from him for the rest of his life.”
What, though, if it’s the wife who has made all the money? Does she lose half too?
Not in every case, according to a recent judgment of the Family Court, which has allowed a wife to keep the bulk of the $4 million in assets she holds in her name, while leaving the husband with pretty much nothing.
The judgment, known as Stiller and Power, was made in September but has only now come to light. It concerns a Brisbane couple, described as “intelligent and creative” who got married in 1991, when both were 53. Each had “a reasonable level of unencumbered assets” including properties held in their own names before they tied the knot.
It has now been over 5 years since Australia’s High Court delivered a stunning judgment in the Magill v Magill paternity fraud case in Australia, effectively creating two remarkable precedents in terms of the perpetuation of fraud in this country.
According to Anti Paternity Fraud Advocate Cheryl King, “Paternity fraud was effectively endorsed by Australia’s highest court, the High Court, denying the plaintiff Mr Liam Magill any legal recourse against the woman who fraudulently deceived both Mr Magill and two of his three children into believing that he was their father.”
King further stated that “this deception continued even after separation, involving financial fraud which the Court deemed as not required to be re-paid”.
King alleges that in the second, another type of fraud was exercised by one of the presiding judges, Justice Susan Crennan.
Many people think – but have been afraid to express it – that married couples in a loving relationship provide our children the best opportunity to prepare for a fulfilling and happy life.
A report released this week, titled For Kids’ Sake and authored by Professor Patrick Parkinson of the University of Sydney, is a sober reminder of this.
It says, in part: “The wellbeing of Australia’s children and young adults has declined sharply in the past decade, and …sliding marriage rates are partly to blame”.