On Sep 17, 2:55*am, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 16 Sep, 16:25, Sara Kirk wrote:

In article
,
*The Real Doctor wrote:
The situatiion as described by the OP is that the woman in question
has been fed, clothed, housed and generally supported by someone else
for twenty years. She now wants to throw him out of the house he
bought, end the relationship ... and keep on spending his money. That
seems a reasonable description of "unfair" to me ...

You cannot make that call from only hearing one side of the story. That
would seem very unfair to me.

I agree.

Ian

I think you might find...either under civil law or family law or both
that a partnership existed and one put money in and the other time and
effort for which the law provides remedies. The ending of such
apartnership has occured and the splitting of assets is beginning,
either in the family court or in a civil action, with the added juice
of a mentally impaiered young adult.

If one were being pedantic, one might begin actions in both areanas.

On Sep 17, 12:10 am, wrote:
On Sep 17, 2:55 am, The Real Doctor
wrote:



On 16 Sep, 16:25, Sara Kirk wrote:

In article
,
The Real Doctor wrote:
The situatiion as described by the OP is that the woman in question
has been fed, clothed, housed and generally supported by someone else
for twenty years. She now wants to throw him out of the house he
bought, end the relationship ... and keep on spending his money. That
seems a reasonable description of "unfair" to me ...

You cannot make that call from only hearing one side of the story. That
would seem very unfair to me.

I agree.

Ian

I think you might find...either under civil law or family law or both
that a partnership existed and one put money in and the other time and
effort for which the law provides remedies.

Yes, but my understanding is that this is complex area of law where it
all depends on interpreting precedents rather than simply following
statutes. That is why I said the mother in the OP's case needed
professional advice.

The ending of such
apartnership has occured and the splitting of assets is beginning,
either in the family court or in a civil action, with the added juice
of a mentally impaiered young adult.

If one were being pedantic, one might begin actions in both areanas.

One might, but the courts would (I believe), not be happy about it.
Bear in mind that in principle there is no Family Court or Chancerey
Court - there is simply the High Court (of course, in practise, there
are judges who are expert in particular areas of law and who will tend
to hear particular sorts of case). If you tried to start two actions
on the same facts, I expect the courts would simply merge them.

On Sep 17, 8:45*pm, Martin Bonner wrote:

One might, but the courts would (I believe), not be happy about it.

I think I used the word pedantic

And of course I was not thinking of simultaneouse actions I was
thinking more of a game, one action in Court the other an on going
barrage aimed at a 2nd action in adifferent jurisdiction, after the
1st action has been concluded either with awin or a lose, an action if
you wish simply setting the scean and based on any new facts the other
side is foolish enough to part with. I dont belive in just asimply
win, more of a rubbing someones nose in the proverbial s**t.

regards or otherwise:


Bear in mind that in principle there is no Family Court or Chancerey
Court - there is simply the High Court (of course, in practise, there
are judges who are expert in particular areas of law and who will tend
to hear particular sorts of case). *If you tried to start two actions
on the same facts, I expect the courts would simply merge them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -