Most will be aware of our passion for being ‘for friends’ – our ‘why’ that ensures we create solutions that we would be proud to offer to our closest friends.
A significant part of where we invest our skills to achieve this 'why' is in the ‘uberification’ of estate planning law, which means we heavily focus on technology enabled solutions.
This also means we have become used to ‘failing fast’.
Most of our fails are private and do not hit your inbox. Sometimes, like yesterday, our fails are public and involve dumb things like promoting an upcoming webinar AFTER the webinar has been held …. That is, our promotion of the webinar we held earlier this week - ‘Adviser Facilitated Estate Planning – Everything you need to know to deliver exceptional value’.
In seeking your forgiveness, we (as those who attended the webinar were promised) offer anyone who sees this email the following:
- a full copy of the slides
- an electronic copy of our 2015 edition of consolidated blog posts (you are free to use any of this content however you wish – with or without acknowledging source)
- the weblink for free access to the webinar recording, under the heading ‘Free recorded webinars’
For the 5 most interesting (as unilaterally determined by our team) one liners about our fail (or lawyers generally) shared on our LinkedIn page over the next week we will send you a proof of one of most popular book releases yet – ‘40 Forms of Trusts’ and free access to the 90 minute webinar that View presented recently which explains each of the 40 trusts – seehttps://viewlegal.com.au/product/recorded-webinar-package/
For those who attended the webinar (or view the recording), attached are our solutions in relation to estate planning, business owners solutions, trust succession and superannuation benefits.
You can view a summary of our wholesale solutions at https://viewlegal.com.au/pricing/(please note that you will need to be logged in to the website to view this page).
If you would like us to consider the appropriate package for your client’s circumstances, you can submit a free review on our website under https://viewlegal.com.au/estate-planning-free-review/
Finally, some useful flyers and videos are available in our estate planning toolkit to assist the clients with their estate planning and can be viewed at https://viewlegal.com.au/resources/
We confirm CPD/CE points for most professional bodies are self-assessed and this email can be produced as evidence of attendance at the webinar which ran for 60 minutes of technical content. If any other particular requirements are needed other than this email please let us know.
A final disclaimer – one liners and lawyer jokes submitted may form part of the next edition of our book ‘101 best lawyer jokes ever’ – see https://viewlegal.com.au/product/101-lawyer-jokes/
Showing posts with label Gift. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gift. Show all posts
Friday, October 14, 2016
Monday, May 21, 2012
Family court case on the distinction between a loan and a gift
We are increasingly seeing advisers and clients alike, focussing (very deliberately) on the way in which they advance monies to their children to assist with, for example, the purchase of a family home.
Today’s post looks at a recent case, which was decided last year, and provides a useful example of the distinction between gifting and lending monies from a family law perspective, particularly in the event of a relationship breakdown.
The case of Pelly & Nolan [2011] involved a situation where the husband’s father advanced approximately $520,000 to ‘help his son out’. The initial advance was $320,000 to assist the son and his young family purchase a property. Additional advances were also made to assist with general living expenses totalling approximately $200,000.
The evidence in the case suggested that the father sought repayment for only the $320,000 advanced relating to the property acquisition and not the monies advanced for general living expenses.
As the initial advance was facilitated by a loan agreement and for the purpose of assisting with the property purchase, the court held that such advance was enforceable, even though no interest on the loan had been demanded nor paid.
In relation to the additional $200,000 advanced, there was no evidence to suggest that a repayment would be enforced by the father.
In the circumstances therefore, the court held that the $320,000 advance was indeed a loan and thus a liability that needed to be deducted from the matrimonial assets; whereas the $200,000 advance would be included as property for distribution to the wife (although the fact that it had been contributed by the husband’s father would be taken into account).
A link to the full decision is as follows –
http://www.fmc.gov.au/judge/docs/Pelly%20&%20Nolan%20[2011]%20FMCAfam530.rtf
Until next week.
Today’s post looks at a recent case, which was decided last year, and provides a useful example of the distinction between gifting and lending monies from a family law perspective, particularly in the event of a relationship breakdown.
The case of Pelly & Nolan [2011] involved a situation where the husband’s father advanced approximately $520,000 to ‘help his son out’. The initial advance was $320,000 to assist the son and his young family purchase a property. Additional advances were also made to assist with general living expenses totalling approximately $200,000.
The evidence in the case suggested that the father sought repayment for only the $320,000 advanced relating to the property acquisition and not the monies advanced for general living expenses.
As the initial advance was facilitated by a loan agreement and for the purpose of assisting with the property purchase, the court held that such advance was enforceable, even though no interest on the loan had been demanded nor paid.
In relation to the additional $200,000 advanced, there was no evidence to suggest that a repayment would be enforced by the father.
In the circumstances therefore, the court held that the $320,000 advance was indeed a loan and thus a liability that needed to be deducted from the matrimonial assets; whereas the $200,000 advance would be included as property for distribution to the wife (although the fact that it had been contributed by the husband’s father would be taken into account).
A link to the full decision is as follows –
http://www.fmc.gov.au/judge/docs/Pelly%20&%20Nolan%20[2011]%20FMCAfam530.rtf
Until next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)