grant hackett is currently pursuing damages against the solicitors who prepared his pre-nuptial
After a drunken binge, in which Grant Hackett’s 2.7 million-dollar home was trashed, the Australian police were promptly called. Although the matter seemed of little importance to the couple at the time events occurred, both parties have since changed their story in light of a terribly botched pre-nuptial agreement.
Grant Hackett is currently pursuing damages against the solicitors who prepared his pre-nuptial documentation.Prenuptial agreements are created prior to the establishment of a legal marriage. The primary purpose of a prenuptial agreement is to generate a clear and legal agreement regarding the dissection of property if the marriage collapses.
In the Australian system, without a prenuptial agreement, individuals generally are allowed to keep property that they have obtained by legal means within a marriage, after divorce. Adjustments are made regarding other factors like income and custodial guardianship of any children resulting from the marriage. The Australian system also attempts to place a numeric monetary number on contributions made by each partner- especially if one person worked within the home.
The length of the marriage is taken into consideration, as well as the effect that the marriage had on each partner’s financial stability. The courts have also made attempts to avoid placing women into impoverished settings. Magistrates attempt to be mindful of the statistical likelihood that female partners made less money during the partnership (Hughes & Sheehan, 2001).
Pre-nuptial agreements are generally recommended when one intended partner is substantially wealthier, and when one individual has a vocation which yields a large amount of funds. Generally, whenever there are a large amount of potential assets to be protected, experts suggest establishing a financial binding agreement at least 90 days prior to marriage.
Without a prenuptial agreement, virtually all of Hackett’s assets could potentially be divided.
In conclusion, the events that took place at Grant Hackett’s home will have an effect on any subsequent divorce proceedings. Hackett may stand to lose a considerable amount of funds, due to his mishandled prenuptial agreement, including any assets which were tied up in the 2.7 million dollar home. In order to avoid Hackett’s fate, experts suggest that both parties sign a prenuptial agreement within any marriage that includes large amounts of assets to ensure that the division of any property post-separation runs smoothly.
Sources:Hughes, J. & Sheehan, G. (2001). Division of matrimonial property in australia.
Disclaimer : This article provides basic information only and is not a substitute for a professional or legal advice. It is prudent to obtain legal advice from a family lawyer.