|
04 May 11 - 12:30 PM (#3147805) Subject: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: Arthur_itus Just read this on the BBC website. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13277819 I just hope the lady wins. |
|
04 May 11 - 12:51 PM (#3147816) Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: Richard Bridge The court of appeal judgment is controversial and IMHO contrary to basic trust law. |
|
04 May 11 - 12:53 PM (#3147820) Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: Arthur_itus Do you think he should get 50% Richard ? Les |
|
04 May 11 - 12:55 PM (#3147824) Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: kendall 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! |
|
04 May 11 - 05:03 PM (#3147988) Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
04 May 11 - 05:23 PM (#3148010) Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: jacqui.c Shame she can't backdate a claim for child support. |
|
04 May 11 - 05:34 PM (#3148021) Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: McGrath of Harlow A demonstration that the law is still an ass... |
|
04 May 11 - 07:45 PM (#3148112) Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: Seayaker Justice seems to come a poor second to legal technicalities |
|
04 May 11 - 08:57 PM (#3148136) Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 07:55 AM (#3148429) Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: GUEST,Patsy It is a pity that the law is so unfair to male common-law partners regarding child access. |
|
05 May 11 - 07:57 AM (#3148433) Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 08:12 AM (#3148447) Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: McGrath of Harlow 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? |
|
05 May 11 - 08:14 AM (#3148449) Subject: RE: BS: I hope she wins. UK From: Backwoodsman "And also that it fails to protect many men from women who use children as pawns in the game" Amen to that. |