He has agreed and is more than happy to sign something. I guess I should be asking a lawyer something like this, but I really want to protect my identity at this stage as the whole thing is so embarrassing.
A. It's great to hear that things are going better for you. I'm also pleased to read that you're considering ways to protect yourself.
Yes, there is such a thing as a mid-nup, but you might have to modify your ideas.
A couple can come to an agreement to contract out of the Property (Relationships) Act at any time in their relationship, says Auckland barrister Margaret Lewis.
But your correspondent must get proper legal advice, as the agreement must be done in the manner required by the act.
Her husband would also need to have an independent lawyer, as this is also required by the act, says Lewis. And that's where your plan may come unstuck.
The lawyer acting for the husband might consider such a draconian way of splitting property is unfair, and refuse to certify the agreement. The husband's wayward conduct wouldn't usually be taken into account when dividing property, unless it has the effect of diminishing the value of the couple's property interests.
Your husband may be able to persuade his lawyer that he is entering the agreement voluntarily. But he might later lay a claim that he was under duress and that his lawyer shouldn't have advised him to sign such an agreement. He may then attempt to have the agreement set aside.
Maybe, though, you could come up with a proposal that isn't quite so harsh, but still gives you more than you would otherwise get if the marriage founders.
You are giving your husband a second chance, and giving up the opportunity to live separately and take over the management of your interest in the joint property at this early stage, says Lewis. It seems reasonable that he should give you something in return.
It's time to get over your embarrassment - lawyers have seen it all before.
* * *
Q. I have come across another twist on the property versus shares debate. My neighbours, a couple in their early 30s, have bought a lifestyle block at Waipu.
They are on modest incomes, one earning $50,000 a year, the other studying.
They realised that shares might be sensible (moderate risk, moderate return) over the long term, but they wanted to do better than the market. They decided property had the potential to do this, if they were smart.
They couldn't afford Auckland, but they decided that it being the economic engine that it is they would set their sights on being within 90 minutes' drive of Auckland.
They settled on Waipu, as having high-value real estate nearby, with a growing economic driver in the expanding Marsden Pt industrial facility and the extension of the Northern Motorway bringing it to about 75 minutes from Auckland.
They have bought a 1ha block with a good workshop/shed (and weekend "roughing it" accommodation) for $130,000.
For them, having a weekend escape where they can indulge in their hobbies of gardening and DIYing, 10 minutes from the beach in a growing area, seemed the best of all possible worlds. They reckon the property is already worth $20,000 more in the six months they have had it.
I thought it a really interesting approach to getting started - and I like the way they did their homework. What are your thoughts?
A. Given that they are putting a lot of effort into their investment - albeit in projects they enjoy - I hope their return is higher than on shares.
But they've committed one grave investment error: they are horribly undiversified. The return on a single property can be anything from fabulous to deeply disappointing.
Sure, they've thought things through in a logical way - which beats buying a block of land just because you love it.
The trouble is that everyone else knows what they know. The seller of the land probably went through much the same thought process.
If so, the land will be fairly priced, with all the features you mention - proximity to Auckland and Marsden Pt, sea views and so on - already factored in.
It's always possible, of course, that the seller was naive. That's one way people do really well with a single property.
More often, though, I think there's a lot of luck in it. The landowner who benefits from a changing attitude to an area, or a motorway extension or local economic development that is announced after they buy, is often the one who makes out like a bandit.
I don't want to be negative, though. Good on the couple for making a start while they are young.
As long as they hold on to the land for the long term, resisting the temptation to sell in the inevitable property slumps, they should make a good gain on it.
If they want to measure whether it's better than they would have done in shares, on a strictly financial basis, they should subtract from their profit any money they have spent on the land, and the market value of their time.
Looking beyond the financial side, though, if they really enjoy gardening and DIYing, they might feel they should add the value of that entertainment to their profit.
And what price would they put on the pleasure of being in a place they love and of feeling so good about it?
Broadly measured, then, their investment looks like a winner even if it doesn't grow hugely in value. And it might.
A couple more points:
* I don't regard shares as having moderate risk and return. They are pretty high on both counts. Their risk can easily be reduced, though, by diversification.
* It's really hard to tell if a property has risen $20,000, or whatever, unless you put it on the market.
Even if it has risen that much, warn your neighbours not to expect that growth rate to continue. There's no way the pace of the current property boom will continue into the long term.
* * *
Q. I am a trustee of a trust that has just sold a building for $2,500,000.
In the past we have limited our investment to commercial property and over time have done well in terms of income and capital gain.
With the sharemarkets on the rise, I was wondering whether we should be looking to put some of the money into shares for long-term growth.
What would you recommend?
A. Definitely put some into shares or a share fund.
I'm not saying that because the markets are on the rise. They have been lately, but they might plunge tomorrow. It's always dangerous to assume an investment trend will continue.
But - regardless of what happens to markets in the short term - trustees should make sure a trust's investments are widely diversified.
Not only will this reduce the risk that the total portfolio will perform badly, but it also reduces your risk of being sued for investing the trust's assets imprudently.
So far, you've done well with commercial property. But that type of investment, like every type of growth investment, has its down periods.
If, during such a period, a beneficiary or their representative started asking awkward questions about why you hadn't followed one of the most basic investment rules - diversification - things could get nasty.
* * *
Email us your question about money
