a romantic relationship should be dissolved in the same way that a marriage is

JethroUK

pathtofreedom wrote: »

,..A lot of what you see on judge judy isn't law here, but she does talk a lot of common sense.,..

This particular point is the same here as in US and probably typifies the way it is handled here

Despite her 40+ years in family court JJ always gets perplexed by these situations that she judges daily

Usually:

She buys him some stuff (often gets into debt over it) - maybe a motor bike or a car

Relationship goes sour

She claims a loan for her investment

He claims they were "gifts"

JJ never knows how to find

Her dilemma is that there is never evidence of a loan because it wasn't one

She is simply invested in a relationship which she often admits

But she is in debt and JJ simply can not in "all good conscience" let him walk away despite his rock solid legal position

So JJ usually starts taking about his morality (which is not actionable) but she is the judge and usually find in her favour because it's just plain wrong

To which i say
Once it's established that the assets in dispute were accrued "during a relationship" (married shmarried) I would always find it 50/50 and give her half her investment back

Because that's exactly what it is, "an investment" in a relationship which is now dissolved

You can't find in her favour because it was never a loan and he did not agree to being in debt

But neither can you find in his favour because he can't walk away with this investment all to himself leaving her with the bills (often still passing credit card)

An investment based upon the understanding that they will be together to share the benefits

But that relationship/understanding ceased to exist

Guest101

JethroUK wrote: »

This particular point is the same here as in US and probably typifies the way it is handled here

Despite her 40+ years in family court JJ always gets perplexed by these situations that she judges daily

Usually:

She buys him some stuff (often gets into debt over it) - maybe a motor bike or a car

Relationship goes sour

She claims a loan for her investment

He claims they were "gifts"

JJ never knows how to find

Her dilemma is that there is never evidence of a loan because it wasn't one

She is simply invested in a relationship which she often admits

But she is in debt and JJ simply can not in "all good conscience" let him walk away despite his rock solid legal position

So JJ usually starts taking about his morality (which is not actionable) but she is the judge and usually find in her favour because it's just plain wrong

To which i say
Once it's established that the assets in dispute were accrued "during a relationship" (married shmarried) I would always find it 50/50 and give her half her investment back

Because that's exactly what it is, "an investment" in a relationship which is now dissolved

You can't find in her favour because it was never a loan and he did not agree to being in debt

But neither can you find in his favour because he can't walk away with this investment all to himself leaving her with the bills (often still passing credit card)

An investment based upon the understanding that they will be together to share the benefits

But that relationship/understanding ceased to exist

1: if one person is stupid enough to get into huge debt for another, then they have one person to blame.
2: if you're basing your arguement on Judge Judy, you should be aware it is basically an alternate dispute resolution service (and the producers pay the award!)
3: if you want protection in law, get married. if not, DONT SPEND THOUSANDS ON THE OTHER PERSON.