BS: I hope she wins. UK

Subject: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 04 May 11 - 12:30 PM

Just read this on the BBC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13277819

I just hope the lady wins.

Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 May 11 - 12:51 PM

The court of appeal judgment is controversial and IMHO contrary to basic trust law.

Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 04 May 11 - 12:53 PM

Do you think he should get 50% Richard ?
Les

Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: kendall
Date: 04 May 11 - 12:55 PM

This brings back a bad memory. I was married for 25 years and when I left and divorced her I paid a very large alimony/child support every month. 9 years later we sold the house and split the equity in half, then because I wasn't living there I had to pay capital gains!

Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 May 11 - 05:03 PM

No. While the presumption of advancement and the presumption of resulting trust are probably obsolete IMHO the joint owners (unless being tenants in common in defined shares) should receive proportional entitlement based partly on their financial contributions and partly on their other contributions including support and parenting.

Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: jacqui.c
Date: 04 May 11 - 05:23 PM

Shame she can't backdate a claim for child support.

Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 11 - 05:34 PM

A demonstration that the law is still an ass...

Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: Seayaker
Date: 04 May 11 - 07:45 PM

Justice seems to come a poor second to legal technicalities

Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 May 11 - 08:57 PM

McGrath - the inaccuracy of your comment, given the origin of the partial quote, is not up to your usual standards.

Seayaker - not yet: it remains to be seen.

Jacqui - a fault of the original separation. Certainly I would have advised (if I did matrimonial) a nominal maintenance order that could later be varied. When my late wife separated from her first husband and got a decree of JS, maintenance was provided for and could in theory have later been varied or enforced.

Kendall - your agreement about disposition of the house proceeds should have provided for CGT to come off the top before division.

The defects demonstrated are not faults of the law but of the arrangements made.

Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 05 May 11 - 07:55 AM

It is a pity that the law is so unfair to male common-law partners regarding child access.

Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 May 11 - 07:57 AM

Yes. And also that it fails to protect many men from women who use children as pawns in the game, and many women from men who renege on maintenance obligations, etc, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:12 AM

the inaccuracy of your comment, given the origin of the partial quote, is not up to your usual standards.

Does this mean my remark is more inaccurate than normal or less so, Richard? And how is the origin of the partial quote relevant?

Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:14 AM

"And also that it fails to protect many men from women who use children as pawns in the game"

Amen to that.