"It's a sad day for men who are left in a similar position to me and it feels like the law will always side with the woman. I'm battling a serious illness and that is more important to me right now. I just want to put all of this behind me."

2011-11-09T18:16:11+00:00

It may or may not be a fair result, but it seems that the courts are basically "creating" a legal marriage where there is none. In a marriage there is a concept of marital property that is sorted-out by the courts in the case of divorce. If I choose not to marry then I should be choosing not to enter that entanglement. I don't see what moral basis they have for interfering in an arrangement between two people that have not chosen to entangle themselves in this way.

If I started a company with a partner and we each had 50% of the shares, a court would not come along later and redistribute the shares based on how hard we had each worked. It's a matter for negotiation, not arbitration.

What should have happened in this case is that if one person was disproportionately contributing and wanted an increased share of the house as a result, that should have been negotiated between them and they should have transferred shares in the house as appropriate.

2011-11-09T18:36:16+00:00

This seems a lot like the article about China regarding who contributed the most to the house.

The difference is there seems to be a double standard - if the man contributed the most to the house, people get upset if he gets it in the divorce. If a woman contributed the most to the house, people think she should get it in the divorce.

Where "divorce" in this case means an increasingly hazy "lived with for a while" case.

Riecth · 2011-11-09T21:55:15+00:00

If this was a divorce this is the type of logic I would like applied to the situation. An evaluation of who contributed what financially and property dispensed proportionately. However this is a case of joint property ownership. No different than if my brother and I bought a property and then only one of us paid the mortgage but the other wanted half the property's worth. I expect there's already laws in place for this scenario.

c0mputar · 2011-11-10T00:21:03+00:00

What was the pay distribution before the 13 years and for how long? And was any work done on the house that increased the value and who paid for it? Dumb article depriving their readers of the facts... All you can get from that is she paid all of the mortgage for 13 years and he got 10%? ZOMG!

frostek · 2011-11-09T17:19:46+00:00

Insufficient details for me to make a full judgement on this issue.

Comments