Forget marriage, now you can't even just live with them...

[sugerbear]

turbobloke said:

sugerbear said:

NicD said:

Breadvan72 said:

Mail readers are objects of pity and humour rather than vexation.

people who say things like that are arrogant tossers, no matter how beautifully crafted their legal advice.

Have you ever read the Daily Mail?

From what you just posted, you have read the Daily Mail. If so, does that automatically make you an object of pity and humour? You appear to be agreeing with BV but can always indicate otherwise.

1. Yes I have read the daily mail. It's by far the best political satire I have ever read.
2, yes, especially as I have just purchased a 3000 watt vacuum cleaner from the daily mail after they warned me that Europe was going to outlaw them, my life would have fallen apart otherwise. does that make me stupid?
3. Do bears..

[vonuber]

I trust more what BV is saying than most others on here about the nuances of the situation.

[Martin4x4]

The biggest irony in this thread is the white knighting. This works on the assumption that women need defending, implicitly suggesting they are too weak to defend themselves.

[turbobloke]

vonuber said:

I trust more what BV is saying than most others on here about the nuances of the situation.

Surprise of the night though the night is young.

The legalities are what they are, the judges may well be right on all points of law but that simply demonstrates what's lawful not what's right.

[Murph7355]

Red 4 said:

Murph7355 said:

This may, of course, limit your options.

It does.

To be honest I can see both sides of the argument - however, there will only ever be one loser financially in circumstances such as this.

A 12 year live-in relationship may justify some monetary settlement - however, there are plenty of gold-diggers out there.

I suspect you're right.

Just don't pull women on the basis of how much cash you've got and you'll be fine.

Or go for women who are loaded.

[NWTony]

But in fairness and regardless of the rights and wrongs of this case, the general opinion of BV on this thread is correct. He is opinionated and argues not to determine the right and wrong of any situation, but solely to inflate his own already overinflated ego.

Pick a thread, any thread and bask in his pomposity and smugness.

As my mother would have said "He'll argue back is white and yellow is no colour"

It isn't worth debating anything with him because he'll never admit anything and will eventually just resort to scoring petty points. See above for examples. As I've said before, undoubtedly a good lawyer.

[vonuber]

turbobloke said:

Surprise of the night though the night is young.

He works in the legal profession and generally speaks sense; why wouldn't I listen to what he says? I certainly put more stock in what he says than you on such matters

[Pit Pony]

If I were ever in the position (and It's unlikely, given that 25 years of marriage is coming up) of being single and having a love interest, I'd pretend to have no assets, and give her a false name. If she wanted to move in with me, it'd be into a rented property in Manchester, with the tenancy agreement in her name, and I'd "work away offshore" and come "home" every 3rd weekend. I'd tap her up for money which I'd never pay back.

[VeeDubBigBird]

Seems like a fair judgment given the explanation for the ruling. He's basically giving back what was deemed reasonable losses she incurred by moving into his house at today's inflation rates. If the judged had decided they were Cohabitees then she might have been rewarded a lot more.

And given that they were together for 14 years its reasonable to assume that the relationship was serious and not just some fling.

[Colonial]

VeeDubBigBird said:

Seems like a fair judgment given the explanation for the ruling. He's basically giving back what was deemed reasonable losses she incurred by moving into his house at today's inflation rates. If the judged had decided they were Cohabitees then she might have been rewarded a lot more.

And given that they were together for 14 years its reasonable to assume that the relationship was serious and not just some fling.

But. A. Woman. Got. Money.

It's Political Correctness gone mad.

[Colonial]

Serious answer time.

This is how the defacto partner arrangements work in Australia. I'm really quite surprised the UK hasn't moved beyond the Victorian era and expanded existing legislation in a similar way.

http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/Brochuresand...

I don't see why not being married should mean anything in a long term relationship and the equitable division of assets.

[greygoose]

Pit Pony said:

If I were ever in the position (and It's unlikely, given that 25 years of marriage is coming up) of being single and having a love interest, I'd pretend to have no assets, and give her a false name. If she wanted to move in with me, it'd be into a rented property in Manchester, with the tenancy agreement in her name, and I'd "work away offshore" and come "home" every 3rd weekend. I'd tap her up for money which I'd never pay back.

Wouldn't it be awkward if the relationship progressed and you had to explain what your real name was, could destroy any trust you had built up?

[gumshoe]

Pat H said:

If you decide to share your life with someone for a decade, then it seems pretty fair that your respective financial worth should start to become entwined.

In this case, he seems to be sitting pretty in the house and has retained all of his assets. She has been awarded a relatively modest sum of money to return her to her financial starting point. He has taken the hump and run up a couple of very big legal bills which he could have avoided if he had made a fair payment into court.

....

It is very straightforward indeed. If you don't want the financial exposure that goes with co-habiting, then don't bloody well co-habit.

It's not even got anything to do with those points above.

He's not been awarded against because he was co-habiting, or because financials should become entwined.

It simply has to do with the fact that she has secured accommodation (gov assisted) and spent money doing it up, then gave it up because he asked her to move in with him. He "promised" her security so all the judges have done is award her back her 20k investment into the accommodation she gave up.

I don't see how it changes anything or opens up floodgates etc etc. Or that she's a gold digger.

And importantly, I don't see how it can be compared to marriage???

Daily mail article is pathetically written.

[PurpleMoonlight]

VeeDubBigBird said:

Seems like a fair judgment given the explanation for the ruling. He's basically giving back what was deemed reasonable losses she incurred by moving into his house at today's inflation rates. If the judged had decided they were Cohabitees then she might have been rewarded a lot more.

And given that they were together for 14 years its reasonable to assume that the relationship was serious and not just some fling.

So the man should bear all the financial costs in the relationship, and if it goes wrong she should get back any 'losses' plus inflation?

Yep, that sounds totally fair and reasonable .....

[PurpleMoonlight]

gumshoe said:

I don't see how it changes anything or opens up floodgates etc etc. Or that she's a gold digger.

She is a gold digger because she and her children lived for free for 10 years, she was financially supported during a degree course which resulted in doubling her salary, she was financially assisted after the relationship, yet she still wanted half the value of the house.

The money she spent on her council house was lost the moment it was spent. That's what happens when you spend money on a property you do not own. Why should the man be ordered to compensate her for that?

What this changes is that should a cohabiting relationship break down then one party (likely the woman) can argue breach of promise and try to claim any money they feel they have 'lost' as a consequence of the relationship from the former partner.

The worst thing I find about the judgement is the notion that the mans career flourished simply because he was in a relationship with her, and that her non financial contribution of simply being there equated to his financial contribution. The judge appears to have completely ignored the fact that her career flourished too but no credit appears to have been given to the man for that.

I am trying hard not to see the usual female bias in this judgement, but for the life of me can't ...

[NicD]

sugerbear said:

1. Yes I have read the daily mail. It's by far the best political satire I have ever read.

Better satire than the Guardian, the Independent, the Mirror, the Times etc?
Please tell us why?

First, I never buy the paper Mail, only read it online.
In its favour, the Mail is not behind a paywall, it gives a flavour of most news items and from time to time, some excellent (though political) investigative journalism, example, the Welsh NHS debacle http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2800672/th...

But still, some people sneer and snipe. I paid a subscription to the Telegraph but their biased tirade against the emerging UKIP put paid to that.

So you lofty sneerers, tell me why picking pieces from all the rags is so worthy of scorn or pity?

[wolves_wanderer]

Colonial said:

Serious answer time.

This is how the defacto partner arrangements work in Australia. I'm really quite surprised the UK hasn't moved beyond the Victorian era and expanded existing legislation in a similar way.

http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/Brochuresand...

I don't see why not being married should mean anything in a long term relationship and the equitable division of assets.

Yep. Trying to be clever and keeping all the assets in his name has backfired. I guess the standard PH advice about living with a woman (sorry, SWT ) will have to change.

[turbobloke]

wolves_wanderer said:

Colonial said:

Serious answer time.

This is how the defacto partner arrangements work in Australia. I'm really quite surprised the UK hasn't moved beyond the Victorian era and expanded existing legislation in a similar way.

http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/Brochuresand...

I don't see why not being married should mean anything in a long term relationship and the equitable division of assets.

Yep. Trying to be clever and keeping all the assets in his name has backfired. I guess the standard PH advice about living with a woman...

Where is that undoubtedly invaluable advice located?! It ought to have sticky status.

In any case surely 'PH advice' would be along the traditional lines that if it floats, flies or fornicates then it's less costly to rent by the hour. It even says so in the internet so it must be true even down under, and there would be no need for all those asset shenanigans.

[PurpleMoonlight]

wolves_wanderer said:

Yep. Trying to be clever and keeping all the assets in his name has backfired. I guess the standard PH advice about living with a woman (sorry, SWT ) will have to change.

No it didn't. Her claim for half the house failed.

[steveatesh]

Judge has been reading this thread by the look of things

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2800896/ma...

From article:
"Sir Nicholas Mostyn, 57, said that there was no difference between the relationships of married and unmarried couples, and condemned the divorce system that gives special protection to wives."

Maybe the perceived bias in favor of women in this context is true?

BV, is there a real bias in favor of women in this part of the legal system, or is the judge wrong?