Hey everybody

Looked at the link, pretty grim I reckon. If she did take half of my business and it had to come from the family home, I will still have to sell both to pay her off sounds like she gets the better deal i loose my business and my house through no fault of my own, seems so unjust. Well i will prepare myself for the worst. Thanks for your help.

Hi Billy

Odd though as I would have thought that keeping the business thriving is a means to an end, as in if you have the business running then it would generate the income to pay for the rest.

Your earning potential would be crippled if you had to sell up, surely it is better to have the earning capacity? As far as I am aware the courts do consider the earning potential on both sides H & W if she is able to work. Someone may be able to correct me here, it is just how I would view 'fairness in a court decision'.

Quite an eye opener this subject matter, or at least a learning curve.

Hi Billy and welcome to wikivorce

It's a fair point 79 - though worth remembering that 'fairness' is a relative term where 'justice' (in the context of jurisprudence) is not. It is a very clearly defined term.

Billy - you need some clear advice. What have you had so far?

Shezi

Hey Shezi

I get what you are saying Shezi re juris prudentia, I have a limited experience of being present in a court room, yet whilst the judge had a set of 'rules' to follow, I was led to believe that they also had to consider what could be deemed as unreasonable expectations too.

Therefore, would it not be unreasonable to expect a man to surrender his livelihood?

Or would it be considered ok, because that is what a lot of women have to do when they have children?


I hope you don't think I am being confrontational here Shezi, I am interested in the debate of the notion

No that's a good point 79 - though I'd rather not debate it on Billy's thread

The clearly defined term of 'justice' in this context is (almost by definition) subject to a judgement being made. However, this judgement is made by someone deemed qualified to judge it, i.e. a Judge.

Whereas, 'fairness' is a term open to interpretation (and therefore judgement) by all.

Naturally, I am speaking here as a linguist and on the subject of language itself. I am not speaking on the value of the content / subject within the language

Shezi

My apologies to Billy, I thought it may hold some relevence to his what he may have to consider with regards to his future decisions.

As DBNO had given a very informative link at the start which, unless I am reading into it incorrectly, was drawing attention to the possibliity that if Billys' choice was to retain the business and possibly forgo the property, then to take into account that the business (or shares in), may not hold the future security that the property may do.

A house is usually worth another house of similar size etc. If it is paid for then whatever happens around that shouldn't affect the base that we all like to work from (our homes). Whereas a business is maybe less static, especially in todays' financial climate.

Trying to understand the judicial system is I hope an asset to anyone going into a court with so much at stake.

My apologies again to you Billy if you feel I have digressed from what is your issue, I am sorry.

79fw

Hi Shezi & 79 Dont apologize for using this thread it is all interesting and is relevant to my situation.....I have had no professional advice as yet, but I am thinking that I really should go see someone.

It's all pretty mind boggling stuff and very concerning. Thank you both for your comments and information me.

I really do think that the court would not put me out of business, its of no benefit to either party here.