- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi there. I assume the starting point is my podcast call. Rob and Helen are getting divorced. He is entitled to 50% of her assets (he has none, so the court will insist she provides for him).
Bridge Farm is definitely a partnership. It involves Tony, Pat, Tom and Helen and was set up as such (and not a limited company) when Tony and Pat decided to retire after their holiday. It is not now and has never been a limited company – Brookfield is a limited company with a very strange share structure set up by Phil – but that is another story.
We do not know what percentage each of the four hold – but it seems likely that it is a straight 25% each. The court will rule that Helen’s share will be split as part of the financial settlement and therefore Rob will own 12.5% of Bridge Farm making him a partner in the partnership.
As it is not a limited company no dividends are involved. The shop, the beef, the veg boxes and the pigs all need to start making good profits. I assume the tea shoppe pays some form of rent and were I the owner I would be putting the rent up.
I listen pretty carefully to the financial mumblings which always lack any real detail (the partnership split has never been stated but I do not think that Tony and Pat would be anything other than equitable).
Hope that clarifies slightly my ramblings!
Kosmo
But Tichy will have to pay for Giddyjack AND Henry, as he is that step child adopty thingy…..he is working for Justin so has money and let’s hope that paying for both children pisses him off so much he has an aneurism, or a heart attack either way… unless he is shot on Thursday …
A girl can dreamI concede I might be wrong about the partnership/Ltd Co but I genuinely thought it was a Ltd co. Farming as partnerships is pretty rare these days on a farm of that size.
I would still argue though that Rob can’t become a 5th partner just because he was married to Helen.
The SWs play fast and loose with accountancy in the rural community and it drive me potty, I spent 23 years working in Accountancy in rural communities. I now work in a school so don’t even start me on the Henry/Rob/Helen story involving her picking him up from school. I suppose we all have our areas of knowledge and when the SWs do it badly it annoys the s**t out of me.Yeah, Mouldyrose.
I’m so through with the whole family law/criminal law travesty.
The ridiculous legal bill was the last straw for me.
I don’t know of anyone in any legal discipline who could possibly charge fees of £30,000 for representation of two separate parties at two relatively brief court hearings. Utter nonsense! At least, I can only remember listening in on two hearings – one of which (the FHDRA) was dire. I wouldn’t have paid Anna Tregorran’s fee for that fiasco.
Come to think of it, is Usha’s firm representing Helen in the family and criminal matters? Has Helen had to share the cost of the psychologist’s report? Is that why the bill is so high? I’d be round at Usha’s office pronto asking what the expletive was going on if she’s somewhere in the background of all this.
I occasionally do work on what is known as a “public access” basis and I’m aware that when it comes to fees and agreeing to undertake advocacy on behalf of a private client, I need to give them clarity about the likely charges for my services up front – none of this ambushing them with a massive bill at the end. More fool Pat and Tony for not reading the client care letter and discussing the fee structure with the solicitor.
Everything has to be paid for, I know, but not at extortionate rates.
As for an equal division of assets on divorce, we’ll see shall we? I don’t often deal with financial settlement cases but to my knowledge the court has a wide discretion to depart from the “yardstick of equality” principle. The list of factors the court has to consider are found in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. In a short marriage fairness may well require that there should not be an equal share of the non-matrimonial property (which is property brought into the marriage rather than acquired during it, like Helen’s interest in Bridge Farm). Misconduct by one spouse only counts as a factor in the financial settlement where it would be “inequitable to disregard it”. I’d argue that Rob’s misconduct shouldn’t be ignored here, so hen you throw into the mix for consideration Rob’s sexual assaults and coercive control (if Helen wants to plead it) and the fact that he alone depleted the family funds (he spent Peggy’s gift which was acquired during the marriage) I don’t see why Rob should be entitled to half of anything.
Oh, but I might bring myself to listen carefully to how the scriptwriters mangle this particular aspect of the law in relation to the story.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.