relationship breakup and house
Discussion
longblackcoat said:
tenpenceshort said:
No, no, no. We should listen ONLY to BV, as he is now our evil lizard overlord. And I for one think that's lovely.
And helpfully, he's even told us that his address is Number 1, Secret Evil Base Inside a Hollowed Out Volcano With All Monorails And Lasers And Stuff, L12 8RD
Edited by Red Devil on Sunday 17th August 06:46
Those windows need a wash.
dave123456 said:
why?
isn't our legal system progressive and based in part on case law? so in my opinion, in the purest sense, a 'pub lawyer' could potentially re-write our legal jurisdiction.
You perhaps meant to say jurisprudence rather than jurosdiction. The pub lawyer would have to leave the pub first, and they rarely do that.isn't our legal system progressive and based in part on case law? so in my opinion, in the purest sense, a 'pub lawyer' could potentially re-write our legal jurisdiction.
Breadvan72 said:
Those windows need a wash.
sorry, i'm not familiar with a jurosdiction. however since a jurisdiction is often predicated on jurisprudence, I shall stand by my contention as being ultimately reasonable.dave123456 said:
why?
isn't our legal system progressive and based in part on case law? so in my opinion, in the purest sense, a 'pub lawyer' could potentially re-write our legal jurisdiction.
You perhaps meant to say jurisprudence rather than jurosdiction. The pub lawyer would have to leave the pub first, and they rarely do that.isn't our legal system progressive and based in part on case law? so in my opinion, in the purest sense, a 'pub lawyer' could potentially re-write our legal jurisdiction.
clearly a few on here tapping away on their tablets in the bulls
tter's arms...I find skulking around a motoring forum and taking a rather scornful and condescending tone with everyone akin to Bradley Wiggins blasting by a sunday morning chain gang and telling them how rubbish they are. he wouldn't, because quite frankly, he doesn't need to prove himself.
just as i'm sure certain people don't frequent lawyers.co.uk forum and incite argument...because it would be a fair tussle, and I doubt some'd like that very much.
Breadvan72 said:
Your account of the facts is a tad unclear. For example, to which house did your friend make improvements ? I assume the current house, but you refer to his work enhancing the sale price, and presumably only the previous house has been sold. Perhaps you mean that his work has enhanced the value of the current house.
There is a distinction between legal title and beneficial ownership. Who has legal title to the house? If both have legal title, the starting presumption is that each has an equal beneficial share in the house, but this can be displaced by contrary evidence. If only one has legal title, the extent of the beneficial interest owned by the other party depends on what the parties agreed and often on what they did, as agreement may be inferred from conduct.
Sorry was a tad unclear ... The previous house was improved (both had legal title to it ), this house was then sold and the profit provided the deposit for the new place. They sadly split up, at that point she decided that the deposit on house no2 was hers alone, not shared so tried to claim that for herself( even when the husband was already giving her half the value of the assets they shared in the marriage -cars/shares/money etc)There is a distinction between legal title and beneficial ownership. Who has legal title to the house? If both have legal title, the starting presumption is that each has an equal beneficial share in the house, but this can be displaced by contrary evidence. If only one has legal title, the extent of the beneficial interest owned by the other party depends on what the parties agreed and often on what they did, as agreement may be inferred from conduct.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 15th August 08:10
Breadvan72 said:
Not so much a tad unclear as a completely different story that has precisely zip nothing to do with this thread. You didn't mention before that these people were married. The rules about property splits on divorce are completely different to those that apply to unmarried couples.
Jesus t1ttyf kcing CHRIST.
Soov535 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Not so much a tad unclear as a completely different story that has precisely zip nothing to do with this thread. You didn't mention before that these people were married. The rules about property splits on divorce are completely different to those that apply to unmarried couples.
Jesus t1ttyf kcing CHRIST.Recognised you from the trademark saying.
Du1point8 said:
Soov535 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Not so much a tad unclear as a completely different story that has precisely zip nothing to do with this thread. You didn't mention before that these people were married. The rules about property splits on divorce are completely different to those that apply to unmarried couples.
Jesus t1ttyf kcing CHRIST.Recognised you from the trademark saying.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff