Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Not true...if it's a matrimonial house you will not lose it if you
go bankrupt in certain circumstances (even that is not strictly
true now)...in divorce, the courts are taking a different view
towards asset separation:
English divorce law in turmoil
by Jeremy D. Morley
England is now a forum of choice for spouses with less assets to
sue their internationally-connected wealthier spouses for
divorce.
Until 2000 the English courts divided a married couples assets in
a way that would ensure that the reasonable needs of the
financially weaker party usually the wife were met. It meant
that the spouse who had more assets in his name than his wife was
able to keep most of them.
Everything changed in the famous case of White v. White. Englands
top court, the House of Lords, ruled that the lower appeal court,
the Court of Appeal, had got it all wrong for 25 years. The House
of Lords ruled that it was wrong to limit a wife leaving a long
marriage to no more than was needed for her reasonable needs.
From now on, everything was to be determined by fairness. The
problem is that fairness is an elusive term.
Then a famous soccer star, Ray Parlour, was ordered to pay his wife
one-third of his future earnings for at least four years, plus a
large lump sum, two valuable mortgage-free houses and a large
annual sum for child support.
And in a case that has caused an outcry in England, an (American)
woman who earned a good salary before marrying an English
multi-millionaire, received a payoff of £5m for less than three
years of a childless marriage in her divorce last year. The House
of Lords will hear that case, Miller v. Miller, on January
30th.
The surprising situation in England results from several
peculiarities of the English system.
[b]The first is that in England the pot of assets that is to be
divided includes everything that the spouses own, including
everything that they each had before they got married. This is in
sharp contrast with most legal systems which say that whatever you
have on the date of the marriage stays yours unless you take
specific steps to give it to the marital
partnership.
The second difference is that the English courts place one partys
inherited assets into the marital pot.
Third, the English courts allow fault to govern the fairness issue.
This allows each party to assert that the other party was the
wrongdoer who should be financially punished for breaking up the
marriage.
Fourth, England is one of the few places where lifetime spousal
maintenance (alimony) payments are routinely ordered by the courts
in favor of the spouse with fewer assets or less earning
capacity.
Fifth, England uses the concept of the clean break as an ideal
way to resolve financial matters. It is intended to mean that one
ex should not have to continuously chase the other ex for money.
Its a very nice theory, but well nigh impossible to put into
practice.
Finally, to make matters even more unpredictable, prenuptial
agreements are not legally binding in England, so that it is
difficult or even impossible for a wealthy person to provide
himself with predictable protection if he is considering
marriage.
Unfortunately, the House of Lords in the recent Miller/ McFarlane
cases has failed to provide clarification. the Court has made it
clear that the standard is "fairness" and that "needs",
"compensation" and "sharing" are the three "strands" to be
considered in applying the concept, but it is unclear how those
strands will work together in any particular case.
Miller/McFarlane has resolved certain issues such as the relevance
of conduct and special contribution but it has raised and left
unclear and unresolved several critical issues such as whether
equality of division should apply to all matrimonial property or
only to "family assets" as opposed to "business and investment
assets" and how assets generated by dual career marriages should be
resolved.
Obviously you have to consult your lawyer, but as a common law
jurisdiction as well and not having alternative legislation on this
matter, the Singapore courts may well follow British precedents.
[/b]
Very chim...i read 1 sentence.....i yawned.
You please stop diverting attention can or not.
married 1 month nia...what assets are we separating for the couple
in sg? Especially for this thread?
