Archive

Monthly Archives: January 2020

Your Will cannot direct what happens to your super

Superannuation is held in trust for its members until a condition of release is met. Death is a condition of release so the trustee can pay the super death benefits of the deceased out.

However, under the SIS Act the death benefits can only be paid to certain people who are classed as “SIS Act dependants” or to the estate:

A SIS Act Dependant includes

– A spouse (married or de facto)

– Any child

– Any person with whom the deceased had an interdependency relationship

Or to the estate:

– The deceased’s legal personal representative (executor or administrator of estate)

Who the benefits are paid to amount the above is determined solely by the trustee of the fund, subject to the trust deed or a valid binding death benefit nomination (BDBN).

Under trust law a trustee cannot be directed by others – a trustee’s discretion cannot be vetted. To get around this trust deeds can direct that the trustee must follow a written direction such as a BDBN.

Some funds only allow a 3 year BDBN which then lapses. If you don’t or cannot renew then the BDBN expires and won’t be effective.

Without a valid BDBN the trustee will decide where your super goes. If you have your super in an industry fund strangers will decide. If you have 2 children and one is a member of your SMSF then this child will decide where your super goes – to themselves only possibly.

People’s super balances are increasing and together with life insurance proceeds it wouldn’t be unusual for an average person’s super balance to be over $1mil on death.

Tip – make sure you understand where your super will go when you die and do something about it if there is a chance it could end up somewhere you don’t want it to go.

Originally posted at

https://propertychat.com.au/community/threads/legal-tip-3-superannuation.275

12 Months Imprisonment with withdrawing from a Loan – Contempt of Court

Not complying with court orders can lead a person to get into serious trouble.

In a recent case relating to a family law property settlement the husband was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment because:

– he withdrew $231,807 from a loan account, and then

– failed to make 48 months of repayments as required

The wife was to receive the house unencumbered (and the husband other assets) and the 48 monthly repayments were required to pay out the loan and discharge the mortgage.

The husband blamed his failing business for his need to breach the court orders.

The wife was the one who brought proceedings to court.

See:

Parrish & Gallejo (No.2) [2018] FCCA 2851

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2018/2851.html

>