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

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

Author
Discussion

Eric Mc

121,769 posts

264 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Time spent posting depends on two factors - frequency of posts and length of posts.

I generally go for frequent but short.

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Time spent posting depends on two factors - frequency of posts and length of posts.

I generally go for frequent but short.
Mister 77k PH posts telling people they've got too much time on their hands is deeply ironic regardless of ass covering strategies smile even in the opinion of mister 62k posts.

Anyway...our brief posts notwithstanding, perhaps somebody else has a view on whether Sir Nick offset the costs for a reasonable period of cooking, cleaning and ironing, given the original judgement included him paying her £28,500 possibly reflecting only one side's expectations of the future within a supposedly verbal or implied contract for that particular cohabitation set-up.

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Guam said:
turbobloke said:
Mister 77k PH posts telling people they've got too much time on their hands is deeply ironic regardless of ass covering strategies smile even in the opinion of mister 62k posts.

Anyway...our brief posts notwithstanding, perhaps somebody else has a view on whether Sir Nick offset the costs for a reasonable period of cooking, cleaning and ironing, given the original judgement included him paying her £28,500 possibly reflecting only one side's expectations of the future within a supposedly verbal or implied contract for that particular cohabitation set-up.
I was reaching for the pot/kettle meme when you replied, you take away all the fun TB smile
I'm sure it will have no long-term impact on your memery smile

When young Eric goes personal, which is usually only a matter of time, there's often a dollop of irony involved.

Meanwhile the mystery of a possibly one-sided view of implied or verbal contracts remains unsolved.....equality demands that his expectations going forward should have been explicitly accounted for surely.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Anyway...our brief posts notwithstanding, perhaps somebody else has a view on whether Sir Nick offset the costs for a reasonable period of cooking, cleaning and ironing, given the original judgement included him paying her £28,500 possibly reflecting only one side's expectations of the future within a supposedly verbal or implied contract for that particular cohabitation set-up.
They had a fair deal if you ask me, he provided accommodation she provided wifely duties (whatever that may be!). Except, after the event one party seems to have wanted to redefine the nature of the arrangement for a financial advantage.

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
turbobloke said:
Anyway...our brief posts notwithstanding, perhaps somebody else has a view on whether Sir Nick offset the costs for a reasonable period of cooking, cleaning and ironing, given the original judgement included him paying her £28,500 possibly reflecting only one side's expectations of the future within a supposedly verbal or implied contract for that particular cohabitation set-up.
They had a fair deal if you ask me, he provided accommodation she provided wifely duties (whatever that may be!). Except, after the event one party seems to have wanted to redefine the nature of the arrangement for a financial advantage.
In this case I would agree that, as per the comment from a female on the OP link, they should have just gone their separate ways - the man in this particular case was generous to a fault both before and after the split.

Eric Mc

121,769 posts

264 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
I'm sure it will have no long-term impact on your memery smile

When young Eric goes personal, which is usually only a matter of time, there's often a dollop of irony involved.

Meanwhile the mystery of a possibly one-sided view of implied or verbal contracts remains unsolved.....equality demands that his expectations going forward should have been explicitly accounted for surely.
Of course, you NEVER go personal.

But you do so love the final word on ANY topic.

I do like the "young" moniker though. That's really cheered me up today.

Eric Mc

121,769 posts

264 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
In this case I would agree that, as per the comment from a female on the OP link, they should have just gone their separate ways - the man in this particular case was generous to a fault both before and after the split.
And the courts have ensured he stays generous.

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
turbobloke said:
In this case I would agree that, as per the comment from a female on the OP link, they should have just gone their separate ways - the man in this particular case was generous to a fault both before and after the split.
And the courts have ensured he stays generous.
hehe

nuts

Axionknight

8,505 posts

134 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
I generally go for frequent but short.
That sounds like my sex life, apart from I don't get it all that often.

Boom boom.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
steveatesh said:
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?
It seems obvious that many women are trying to take advantage of a system which ( should be ) limited to just making sure that children ( not wives ) aren't left in the situation of being disadvantaged financially in the event of a relationship breakdown.In which case in the event of that happening there is always going to be the inbuilt issue that custody of children usually stays with women which is fair enough.But which can produce a system which seems like is biased in favour of women but really isn't.

Ironically in this case there were no child support issues and there seems to be proof that the woman in question was looking for more financially out of the relationship breakdown than she had financially contributed to it.

Which not only brings into question the reasons for that breakdown.But also the question why wasn't her case thrown out completely in view of that.As it was obvious that to add insult to injury the costs of defending that invalid claim,on his assets,were going to hit the poor mug regardless.

As it stands the way I read is that divorced woman living in rented housing moves in with well paid man/mug who more than covers his share of the financial costs of the relationship,including a house to live in.Then gets taken to court for his share of those assets when the relationship breaks down for some reason.Woman loses case but man/mug still gets hit with all the legal costs of the woman's invalid financial claim against him.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
steveatesh said:
...

BV, is there a real bias in favor of women in this part of the legal system, or is the judge wrong?
I don't know. I am not generally very impressed by the Family Division and only ever went there very rarely to deal with cases about incapacitated adults (now dealt with by the Court of Protection). Lord Justice Munby, a Judge whom I admire, has described the Family courts as operating "inside a Silo".

I suspect that the picture may be skewed to some extent by the fact that men still tend to earn more than women, and by the fact that women are still more often than not the primary carer for children. I add that traditional ideas about gender roles and about marriage as transactional are probably not confined to one sex or the other.

When I got divorced I avoided the courts and agreed the financial split with my ex wife, and would always recommend this course over litigating.

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
steveatesh said:
...

BV, is there a real bias in favor of women in this part of the legal system, or is the judge wrong?
I don't know. I am not generally very impressed by the Family Division and only ever went there very rarely to deal with cases about incapacitated adults (now dealt with by the Court of Protection). Lord Justice Munby, a Judge whom I admire, has described the Family courts as operating "inside a Silo".
A valuable insider insight, thanks. Based on experience and observation from the outside, I tend to agree.

Breadvan72 said:
When I got divorced I avoided the courts and agreed the financial split with my ex wife, and would always recommend this course over litigating.
Spot on. One question arising from that is where do you go if, as in this case, one side is going ott i.e. the claim for half the house - not agreed to and not upheld - or even if as in other cases there are bogus claims of domestic violence made to exert influence and gain advantage (no need to remind me that there are plenty of genuine cases of family violence on all sides)? How can impacts of the inevitable be minimised if at all?

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
When I got divorced I avoided the courts and agreed the financial split with my ex wife, and would always recommend this course over litigating.
That's all well and good if both of you want to avoid court, but if one is hell bent on going there then both of you will be doing so ....

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
As far as I am aware (and it's not my field, so I'm not sure of this), costs sanctions are rare in family cases, and thus there is little disincentive to the adoption of unreasonable stances. In other types of litigation, unreasonable conduct will often result in the award of costs or other sanctions.

Pat H

8,056 posts

255 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
When I got divorced I avoided the courts and agreed the financial split with my ex wife, and would always recommend this course over litigating.
I am also a divorced lawyer who avoided the courts and agreed the financial split with my ex.

I too would recommend this course.

My separation was pretty amicable. Partly because I am an amicable sort of chap. Partly out of determination not to squander my meagre assets on expensive litigation.

And if that means she received more than she might strictly be entitled to, then so what? She will doubtless spend some of it on the kids.

smile

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Pat H said:
And if that means she received more than she might strictly be entitled to, then so what? She will doubtless spend some of it on the kids.
Excellent news on your amicable settlement.

And if all the kids went to live with you?

Pat H

8,056 posts

255 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Excellent news on your amicable settlement.

And if all the kids went to live with you?
I've got one and the other is at university.

We just seem to muddle along happily on an ad-hoc basis.

I am under no illusions that it is a lot more difficult for most couples that separate.

Neither my ex nor I are particularly bothered about money, which really seems to help.

As long as there is enough to finance a couple of old cars, a motorbike, real ale and Chicken Madras, then all is well with the world.

drink

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Pat H said:
turbobloke said:
Excellent news on your amicable settlement.

And if all the kids went to live with you?
I've got one and the other is at university.

We just seem to muddle along happily on an ad-hoc basis.

I am under no illusions that it is a lot more difficult for most couples that separate.

Neither my ex nor I are particularly bothered about money, which really seems to help.

As long as there is enough to finance a couple of old cars, a motorbike, real ale and Chicken Madras, then all is well with the world.

drink
That sounds like a good outcome thumbup

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
I have a couple of old cars, but currently no motorbike. For me it's cheap claret rather than beer these days. Chicken Madras v good (but not with cheap claret). My ex wife is in Venice this week, but I care not (and anyway she's not staying at the Danieli). People who do conflict for a living may be averse to doing it in private life. I know that I am, so I'd rather bung money to my ex, not bother arguing with crappy garages and so forth than have argy bargy. If I'm going to be shouty I should get paid for it.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
My ex wife is in Venice this week.
You might be in luck- I hear it's flooded ATM.