 |
| |
|
 Don't forget to count redundancy |
|
 |
|
 |
|
A telephone technician from country NSW took a generous voluntary redundancy package just weeks after reaching a property settlement with his former wife in a devious attempt to cheat her out of half the windfall. The employee, who was in his late 50s, was set to reap more than $600,000 based on his 30 years service with the same company.
He deliberately waited until after the family home, furniture and car (valued at just $160,000) had been split with his wife of 25 years before opting for voluntary retirement and taking the pay out. However, the law sees superannuation, redundancy and long-service lump-sum payments as having been accumulated over the years of marriage and, depending on the details of each case, both adults are entitled to the money.
According to the Family Court, the person who has not been working has contributed to the redundancy package as has the working partner. This means a spouse duped into settling a property dispute before the partner takes a redundancy package is able to reopen the case. In this instance, the wife, who had given up work to raise their three children, decided she would pursue the matter in the courts after learning of her husband's sneaky attempt to line his own pocket.
The court usually rules on cases where it is the husband who has the future income earning capacity and the wife does not have a job and has been out of the workforce for some time. In some cases the traditional roles are reversed. Consider the case where the husband got a considerably bigger share of their combined assets because his wife had better job and superannuation prospects.
In this case, a couple married the same year the husband got a storeman's job which he held for almost 30 years before he took redundancy and rolled over a $270,000 termination and superannuation payment. Two years after quitting his job, the couple decided to end their marriage. At the time, the 59-year-old husband believed he had the best of both worlds - a hefty pay out and the qualifications to find another job - but age hurt his prospects.
He had only been able to find work one day a week at a local club earning $70, was forced to live off the interest on the rollover fund, was not entitled to an age pension until 65 and could not claim the dole. Despite spending the first 10 years of their marriage as home maker raising five children, the wife had the foresight to get part-time work and undergo mature age study to update her teacher/librarian skills to get a full-time job in 1983.
The judge said the parents should be treated as having made an equal contribution to the redundancy payment and long service leave because they had lived together for the same time it had taken the husband to accrue the entitlement. In an ironic twist, it was the wife's more financially secure future and the prospect of a $100,000 superannuation pay out which prompted the judge to award the husband 60 per cent of their $450,000 in joint assets.
If you need advice on how a court will treat redundancy, superannuation, long service or future earning capacity contact a specialist family lawyer.
February 2001
February, 2001
|
|
 |
|
