girlfriend wants half!
Discussion
Cobnapint said:
Still not buying it. How far do you go back with this?
I've been going out with him for 6 months and I expected to get engaged, and then married so give me half?
He took me out for a meal on the first date, looked me in the eyes and said I was marriage material - verbal contract! Half please!
Ridiculous. Not going to happen.
Saying someone is "marriage material" and actually getting "engaged to be married" are completely different things and your obstructionism of this simple point of law is rather telling.I've been going out with him for 6 months and I expected to get engaged, and then married so give me half?
He took me out for a meal on the first date, looked me in the eyes and said I was marriage material - verbal contract! Half please!
Ridiculous. Not going to happen.
Cobnapint said:
Still not buying it.
Sorry, I forgot to add, I have no comprehension as to why you "buy" Section 1 of the Act but not Section 2.I have about 30 minutes before I have to move back to actual work, so if anyone wants to further an argument as to why the Statute I posted does not actually exist - then please speak now or forever hold your peace.
JulianPH said:
Cobnapint said:
Perhaps you should have gone on to section 2 of the act...Link here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/33
Summary below:
2 Property of engaged couples.
(1)Where an agreement to marry is terminated, any rule of law relating to the rights of husbands and wives in relation to property in which either or both has or have a beneficial interest, including any such rule as explained by section 37 of the M1Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, shall apply, in relation to any property in which either or both of the parties to the agreement had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force, as it applies in relation to property in which a husband or wife has a beneficial interest.
(2)Where an agreement to marry is terminated, section 17 of the M2Married Women’s Property Act 1882 and section 7 of the M3Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Act 1958 (which sections confer power on a judge of the High Court or [F1the family court] to settle disputes between husband and wife about property) shall apply, as if the parties were married, to any dispute between, or claim by, one of them in relation to property in which either or both had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force; but an application made by virtue of this section to the judge under the said section 17, as originally enacted or as extended by the said section 7, shall be made within three years of the termination of the agreement.
However, this refers to 'Property of Engaged Couples'.
Surey, if the OP was engaged, the property still wouldn't be that of an engaged couple - it would be a property 'of' one man. It's still his. She hasn't paid a bean towards it. It is not a property that she has any stake in for it to come under that ruling.
Cobnapint said:
Thanks for your response.
However, this refers to 'Property of Engaged Couples'.
Surey, if the OP was engaged, the property still wouldn't be that of an engaged couple - it would be a property 'of' one man. It's still his. She hasn't paid a bean towards it. It is not a property that she has any stake in for it to come under that ruling.
Doesn't the use of 'either or both' (as the quote) make it applicable, since he has an interest?However, this refers to 'Property of Engaged Couples'.
Surey, if the OP was engaged, the property still wouldn't be that of an engaged couple - it would be a property 'of' one man. It's still his. She hasn't paid a bean towards it. It is not a property that she has any stake in for it to come under that ruling.
Edited by yajeed on Monday 21st August 18:03
Cobnapint said:
Thanks for your response.
However, this refers to 'Property of Engaged Couples'.
Surey, if the OP was engaged, the property still wouldn't be that of an engaged couple - it would be a property 'of' one man. It's still his. She hasn't paid a bean towards it. It is not a property that she has any stake in for it to come under that ruling.
Read the Act again. It is about beneficial ownership whilst being engaged, should that engagement be called off. You are misunderstanding the difference between ownership and beneficial ownership.However, this refers to 'Property of Engaged Couples'.
Surey, if the OP was engaged, the property still wouldn't be that of an engaged couple - it would be a property 'of' one man. It's still his. She hasn't paid a bean towards it. It is not a property that she has any stake in for it to come under that ruling.
It matters not whether she paid anything towards it for her to have a beneficial stake in it. My concern for the OP was her payment of the insurance of the property (assuming this included buildings insurance) as to make such payments would require an insurable interest and this is impossible to differentiate with a beneficial interest. It would, therefore, add great weight and credence to her case.
We don't even have any reason to suspect they were engaged (the OP did not state they were and has not come back on the point), I simply raised it as it may have been relevant (without any details) and because it is a little know point of law for many.
desolate said:
And if there is no ring? (Consideration)
Very good question!Consideration can take many other forms and it has already been tested that whilst consideration needs to be substantive to reflect the issue(s) involved an engagement ring is a symbolic recognition of a lifetime's worth of commitment.
Equally, whilst it is accepted that the value of the consideration (ring) is usually disproportionate to the value of the commitment (and therefore liability) being undertaken (by the man) it is virtually unheard of for any woman to accept a proposal without a ring (of any value) being offered, so this is a moot point!
I like your thinking though.
JulianPH said:
Very good question!
Consideration can take many other forms and it has already been tested that whilst consideration needs to be substantive to reflect the issue(s) involved an engagement ring is a symbolic recognition of a lifetime's worth of commitment.
Equally, whilst it is accepted that the value of the consideration (ring) is usually disproportionate to the value of the commitment (and therefore liability) being undertaken (by the man) it is virtually unheard of for any woman to accept a proposal without a ring (of any value) being offered, so this is a moot point!
I like your thinking though.
What happens if she proposes and he gets a blow job instead of the metal?Consideration can take many other forms and it has already been tested that whilst consideration needs to be substantive to reflect the issue(s) involved an engagement ring is a symbolic recognition of a lifetime's worth of commitment.
Equally, whilst it is accepted that the value of the consideration (ring) is usually disproportionate to the value of the commitment (and therefore liability) being undertaken (by the man) it is virtually unheard of for any woman to accept a proposal without a ring (of any value) being offered, so this is a moot point!
I like your thinking though.
That's what happened to me - maybe I have a defective contract!
JulianPH said:
Cobnapint said:
Still not buying it.
Sorry, I forgot to add, I have no comprehension as to why you "buy" Section 1 of the Act but not Section 2.I have about 30 minutes before I have to move back to actual work, so if anyone wants to further an argument as to why the Statute I posted does not actually exist - then please speak now or forever hold your peace.
Which is right?
Cobnapint said:
JulianPH said:
Cobnapint said:
Still not buying it.
Sorry, I forgot to add, I have no comprehension as to why you "buy" Section 1 of the Act but not Section 2.I have about 30 minutes before I have to move back to actual work, so if anyone wants to further an argument as to why the Statute I posted does not actually exist - then please speak now or forever hold your peace.
Which is right?
Section 1 refers to all the lack of rights a non-married person has, compared to a married person. Section 2 deals with property (particularly beneficial property) rights alone (so still does not confer any right to maintenance or other ancillary relief).
It is complex and for this reason usually doesn't warrant the cost and risk involved in testing the matter at court. The last major case I remember was Dibble v Pfluger in 2010. This relied a great deal on Section 2 and the Court of Appeal upheld this.
Section 65 of the Civil Partnership Act gives equivalent provision (for anyone interested).
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I did after a minute - shouldn't have posted a response before - but was focusing on the other responses in a short window of time. You are completely correct. Sometimes the messenger gets shot and I was responding in that mindset. I trust I didn't cause offence.
Julian
garyhun said:
Cotty said:
What is she after, half the debt?
My guess is half a Cadbury cream egg left over from Easter and a packet of minstrels.Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff