Can someone translate this into english please!

Richard_S

fermi wrote: »

Notalot has spoken to CLS direct, who seem to think that the OR will pursue it as a TAUV.

The following link refers to a transaction/transfer that was ordered by the courts rather than voluntary, but it makes interesting reading.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1769520.ece

Hi fermi,

It's certainly a TAUV, but if it wasn't done with the intention of putting an asset beyond the reach of creditors whilst insolvent then the Transaction can't be voided.

If an individual is solvent, they can sell or transfer assets without doing anything wrong. It's a reasonably natural thing for the divorcing partner leaving the family home to transfer the ownership under value to secure a stable environment for his/her children and/or ex spouse.

I think the problem will be that the O.R will try to prove that Notgot was insolvent within the 3 to 5 year time frame.

Richard

fermi

Richard_S wrote: »

It's certainly a TAUV, but if it wasn't done with the intention of putting an asset beyond the reach of creditors whilst insolvent then the Transaction can't be voided.
Richard

We've come full circle to what we/I said in the original thread discussing this.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=696117

In particular:

31.4.28 Period of review (bankruptcy only)

It is necessary to show that the transaction was at an undervalue and that it occurred during the 5 years prior to the day that the bankruptcy petition was presented. If the transaction was entered into in the period of 2 to 5 years prior to the presentation of the petition, the individual must either have been insolvent at that time or to have become insolvent as a result of the transaction. The onus of proving insolvency is on the trustee except in relation to an associate (see below). Any transactions entered into in the 2 years prior to the presentation of the petition are voidable regardless of whether or not the individual was insolvent, unless the transaction was for valuable consideration and entered into in good faith.

31.4.29 Transaction with an associate

A person is an associate of an individual if that person is the individual’s husband or wife, or a relative, or the husband or wife of a relative, or the individual or the individual’s husband or wife. Where an individual has entered into an undervalue transaction with an associate, it is presumed that the individual was insolvent at the time (see paragraph 31.4.2). It is presumed that the person did not act in good faith.


So the onus may be on you to prove you weren't insolvent.

fermi wrote: »

Well, you said yourself:

"For the record every penny of my subsequent debt has been acquired after i got divorced. 2006 onwards to be exact."

So if you can prove all the liabilities you are going bankrupt for now were acquired after the transfer, then I presume that would do it.

Which given the above, should hopefully be OK.

Richard_S

Is it a good or a bad thing that we've gone round in a circle?


I think it should be o.k, but I'd definitely want it in writing from a solicitor; far too much at stake.:eek: :eek:

I feel like a "jailhouse lawyer". :rotfl: :rotfl:

Time for a beer I think;:T well when I finish work.:rolleyes:

fermi

Richard_S wrote: »

Is it a good or a bad thing that we've gone round in a circle?

A good thing.

It means that we came a an initial conclusion, that was then questioned and queried as a result of further information. Exploring those brings us back to the original conclusion.

That gives me a little more confidence in it.

Obviously not total confidence since we aren't lawyers, but probably the best we can hope to do.

Definitely time for a :beer:

Notgotapottoweein

So i'll be alright then?

fermi

Notgotapottoweein wrote: »

So i'll be alright then?

I think so.

Obviously we can't be sure, and I think even an IP would need to see more details than we have here before they could say with any confidence.

Don't depend on our opinions.

This looks to be a tricky bit of law, even for the professionals.

But if the OR discovers the transfer I would imagine they are going to ask questions at the very least. So best to be prepared for that.

Notgotapottoweein

From what the guy at the CLS told me though my bankruptcy will overide the divorce?

Scarlett.1974

Fermi and Richard - you two are fantastic. I am slightly awed that you have gone to so much trouble to try and sort this out and advise potless in the way that you have. Your willingness to give up your time to help a complete [STRIKE]weirdo[/STRIKE] stranger on t'internet is to be applauded :T

Notgotapottoweein

Scarlett.1974 wrote: »

Fermi and Richard - you two are fantastic. I am slightly awed that you have gone to so much trouble to try and sort this out and advise potless in the way that you have. Your willingness to give up your time to help a complete [strike]weirdo[/strike] stranger on t'internet is to be applauded :T

Easy woman!

That rug needs hoovering again:rotfl:

fermi

Notgotapottoweein wrote: »

From what the guy at the CLS told me though my bankruptcy will overide the divorce?

Under the correct circumstances it would.

But from the look of it that may only be the case if you were insolvent at the time.

Who's to say how good the advice from CLS is? Even the IS copped out from giving you a straight answer.