Shared Living Arrangements--the next bite of the elephant.

Graeme T Smith

Following on from our previous post, which opened up discussion on the many potential versions of Shared Living Arrangements, this is intended to develop further thought on the options which fall under this definition, and the categories of potential conflict.

Firstly, defining the options.

At the “least complicated” end of the options list, the owner/occupiers of a conventional home provide accommodation to one or more fellow seniors—as “board paying” tenants, or in return for “services” provided by more physically able tenants.

At the “most complicated” end of the options list, the more adventurous and financial will form their own mini-community of socially compatible “family” members of both genders, pooling financial resources to purchase, modify, or build a home comprising luxurious private suites, with dining and recreation amenities in common areas. Perhaps the arrangement will stretch to sharing cleaning and maintenance services, a personal chef or personal trainer, even a mobile masseuse or hairdresser.

Between the two ends of the “complications” list are every possible variation and/or combination – with or without the provision of meals, sharing outgoings, sharing the physical demands of independent living.  And these options cover the gamut of shared “ownership” as well as shared living – and each option has its own twist, everything from strata title considerations, to the declaration of “income” from these arrangements for Centrelink evaluation of the affects on pension entitlements.

And the fun has just started!

The list of “what if?” scenarios seems endless, but list headings will include:-

• House rules
• Irreconcilable differences
• Property title considerations
• Centrelink and taxation implications
• Property and third-party insurance coverage
• Can’t/won’t continue to pay their share
• Extended periods of sickness and the inevitable death of a sharing partner
• Ability to transfer/dispose of “sharing” entitlements.

The solution to the many potential and inevitable problems is simple to nominate, and extremely difficult to achieve – open communication and legal documentation of everything.

Murphy’s Law ( If it can go wrong, it will ), was written for the many versions of Shared Living Arrangements.

We will continue to expand our input to this discussion, but need to add the overall evaluation that the potential financial and social benefits of Shared Living Arrangements dictate we must find the way to successful implementation, despite the many pitfalls.

Please contribute to the discussion with a comment below.