I'm not a lawyer but I would guess his chances of being able to throw you out of the marital home is around zero percent - regardles of ownership. If he physically throws you out, then you simply go to the police. Gone are the days when wives/husbands could be chucked out on their ears. The most important thing to do, though, is see a lawyer. I would assume half of his stake in the company which owns the family home automatically belongs to you so he can't sell without your permission as long as you get to lawyer quick and freeze the assets/get some kind of ruling.
Please support our advertisers:
"I would guess his chances of being able to throw you out of the marital home is around zero percent - regardles of ownership" WRONG.
The house, technically speaking, doesn't belong to him but to a company (3rd party). Technically speaking, the company that he owns sets the house for him, so technically is not "his personal property". He can easily close down the company, or give his shares to the aunt, and she will be gone and gone.
"half of his stake in the company which owns the family home automatically belongs to you" WRONG. SO WRONG.
Any asset he had before the marriage is his. That is standard. She has been married with him for a bit more than a year so I would go as far as to say that he can even apply (and get) an annulment, which means that it will be as if the marriage never happened.
Worst case scenario he might have to give her about 7 months of alimony, and only if she manages to pin him down via U.S. courts.
You may want to check with a lawyer but, knowing my way aroudn marriage law I'd say you don't stand a chance...rightfully. Or do you think that just because you marry someone for a bit more than a year you will automatically get a golden parachute?
My question for you is: Are you so low that you want to take money from someone else? Do you consider yourself worth so little? If the marriage is bad, how about walking away amicably, taking what you brought and nothing more?
I had a long term relationship once. When we split, I gave her exactly 50% of all my stuff, right down to the penny. I did so willingly and we were not even married. Then again, we were together for 5 years. However, if she asked me for a penny I would keep her in court battling for pennies for the rest of her life. I get the feeling that your husband might do the same, so better end things without lawyers.
Just a prudent advice.
Please support our advertisers:
Agree on this one:
" If the marriage is bad, how about walking away amicably, taking what you brought and nothing more? "
Please support our advertisers:
TX Cowboy. I would suggest she sees a lawyer. I think you're looking at it from a US angle whereas I'm looking at it from a UK one - which is ultra wife-friendly. As HK is a former UK colony, it is more likely to be closer to the UK system. Any lawyers out there?
Please support our advertisers:
Loyd, I was looking at it from HK point on view. In the US, as I mentioned, she would get 7 months of alimony but in HK that is very unlikely.
Funky toes, didn't your husband invest blood, sweat and tears, too? In that case I think he owes you nothing.
Or, did he spent the whole marriage doing nothing? In that case you made a very poor choice of husband...did he put a gun to your head to marry him, perhaps?
Let me tell you what happened. You married him thinking that now you had someone to take care of you. I am not picking on you, but I want this to be a lesson for anyone who reads this: BEFORE you get married you must be able to stand on your own two feet, financially and otherwise. If you marry someone expecting this person to take care of you, you automatically give that person the right do throw you away. YOU DID THIS TO YOURSELF.
I am sick and tired of this whole sense of entitlement. I am sick and tired of women (I am a hetero man, so this is my angle) talking about love when it comes to marriage but start looking for cash when the marriage is over. This is, by the way, the prime reason, suspect number 1, and first sample of why men don't commit. We don't commit because the EU/US legal system makes sure there is absolutely nothing to win for men. Not even to get even.
So yeah, of course he married you via HK law. And yeah, he made sure the house was not directly under his name...is just me or there was some trust issue beforehand?
For the second time, I think he didn't trust you and he was proven right, so I am pretty sure he got his back covered. You want to play lawyers? Go ahead, but I am sure he is going to keep you in court for years to come.
For the second time, leave that marriage amicably. He knows what he is doing.
Please support our advertisers:
I think TXCowboy is right, but then again, I am not a lawyer, my understanding is in HK, live in arrangement is often considered as merely dating. The duration of marriage and each partner’s contribution into the conjugal household is the base for calculation in a divorce.
HK was a UK colony but we have been back to China for more than 10 years and we are using the Basic Law, Chinese has own view towards marriage and divorce, very different from Western world ..Personally I’d say HK Law is better than UK’s as UK tends to always side with the female, I am a woman, but I think fairness is the key.
TXCowboy, I like your comment and advice, in a relationship, both parties invest time, sweat and energy into it, when things get sour, it is never only one partner’s fault. Again, I am a woman, but I have no respect for women who view marriage as landing a “long time rice ticket” (in Chinese),
“BEFORE you get married you must be able to stand on your own two feet, financially and otherwise. If you marry someone expecting this person to take care of you, you automatically give that person the right to throw you away.” – I’d say YES to this and it should applies to both men and women, I have seen men clinging to their sugar mommies without dignity…
Please support our advertisers:
Amparo Kia. The law in HK is based on English law even though we are now part of China. The divorce laws - to my knowledge - are not based on Chinese tradition though about 100 years ago concubines were legal.
Please support our advertisers:
yeah:))) 100 years ago, there is no legal or not legal, in China, men and women got married in a ceremony witnessed by their elders and there is no official paper to prove it. Concubines are accepted only when the original wife approved of it. There is this tradition that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th... wives must walk under the pants of the orginal wife as a symbol to respect her, and listen to her .... and this can only happen in a wealthy household...
Anyway, maybe you're right, like I said I am not an expert of law
Please support our advertisers:
Loyd, you are correct. HK law is completely different than Chinese law. The point here is that advice has been given, and I am more concerned about the personal point of view than the legal one.
Funky Toes, do get a lawyer who will tell you exactly what I did.
Please support our advertisers:
Funky Toes - under the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance your hubby cannot just throw you out of the property. If you consulted lawyer the first thing they would do would be to invike the Act and prevent your hubby from throwing you out or selling the property.
If you do decide to divorce, a 50/50 split of assets would be the starting point with the length of the marriage looked at and any periods of cohabiting. As you appear not to have any children it is unlikely the court will award you more than 50% but you may secure spousal maintenance for a limited time to tide you over until such time that you can be self-supporting.
You should be entitled to at least 50% of any equity in the property. Almost all assets will be considered joint assets and be thrown in to the pot.
I were you I would consult a lawyer. You need not take matters further bvut get some advice and see where you stand. If a split really is likely at any stage in the future, I would strongly recommed that you be the one to bring the divorce (the petitioner). You will be better able to control the pace of proceedings and can probably claim the costs of divorce against your husband. You will also avoid the all too common 'respondent remarriage trap' in case the finances are not sorted out before you remarry. It can sometimes to take many years to resolve financial issues in divorce even after Decree Absolute. You may consider an agreement with your hubby (should you agree to divorce) that neither of you will apply for the DA before finances are sorted and wrapped up in a binding court order.
Please support our advertisers:
Strangelove, the property is not "his". It belongs to a corporation in which he has no full ownership. She CAN be thrown out.
Please support our advertisers:
TxCowboy. The courts aren't going to fall for 'I'm not the owner it belongs to the corporation' rubbish. She should see a lawyer ASAP.
Please support our advertisers:
Funky Toes. Please see a lawyer immediately - it's worth every penny. If he transfers money to the company I suppose there are ways to reclaim it but it probably wouldn't come to that. All these companies/joint-ownerships etc are sleights of hand which make things difficult. However, they do not alter the simple fact that you are his wife and are protected as such under the law. Phone that lawyer now and - for the record - I'm a husband. There is no need to be fair to him or take a moral stand. All is fair in love and war.
Please support our advertisers:
Concubines are still legal in HK! It's still in the Ordinance.
Please support our advertisers:
"Concubines are still legal in HK! It's still in the Ordinance."
only the ones acquired pre-1970 if i have that right in mind
Please support our advertisers:
There's a lot of comments here from people who have no idea about the law, and who because they are male, probably think this guy has sewn it up sweet and she ought to whimper away...
The truth is there are such thing as equity and promissory estoppel in Hong Kong law, and this lady may have an equitable interest in this property depending on what promises were made to her, and the actual set up of the situation.
My dear, there is nothing wrong with going to a lawyer to demand equitable rights. If someone has made undertakings to you and you have acted to your detriment on those promises, then you have the law on your side. The remedies for estoppel are much wider than for other situations. Do see a good equities lawyer. Lawrence Ma wrote the book....
If you are not clear on what equity means, it means that the court has the right to disregard someone's strict legal rights in order to do justice. Equity trumps common law, and will not allow statute to be used as an instrument of fraud. It appears to me from a brief reading of this that your husband's attempts to get cut you out of things may constitute unconscionable behaviour, especially if he had made undertakings to you beforehand.
Please support our advertisers:
I see there are a lot of 'relativists' here. A wife of 1 1/2 years is still a wife. Now this may affect a final divorce settlement but it in no way impinges on her fundamental rights as a spouse. Hampton, Winters and Glynn are a good family law firm. An hour with them should see you right Funky Toes. It won't cost you a fortune.
Please support our advertisers:
I thought forums were a place to discuss and hence get free advice, legal or not. Funky Toes, you still have spousal rights. A wife is a wife is a wife. You also mention you have been together with your husband for 7 years now, although only married 1 1/2, I'm sure it's traumatic leaving something you have shared for so long. People like Taj should try actually being in your situation before making such thoughtless comments.
Please support our advertisers:
If you read through the posts, Funky Toes says shes been living with her hubby since 2003. You didn't upset me, I just think it's rather thoughtless to automatically assume she is mis-using her marriage as you put it. Although, even if she hadn't been with her hubby for that long, she would still have her spousal rights. What would be the point of getting married otherwise?
Please support our advertisers:
Does this man still deserve all these "legal" effort ? For this kind of man(if the whole story is real) i even want to pay him to get out of my life...right now!!
Please support our advertisers:
Funky Toes. Forget emotions. remain calm, forget relationships, hold your tongue and temper and calmly walk into a lawyer's office.
Please support our advertisers:
To those people who think that the high EQ solution here is to accept you have married a dud and walk on out, on the basis of some view that one has no right to expect to be treated any better because one has not had ten years on the clock in the marriage, I think you really have some issues of your own that you may need to address such as jealousy, low self esteem, or some sense of entitlement that people who have money have a right to horde it up for themselves and not meet their legal and moral obligations.
This woman has said that she changed her life for this man, and rightly there is a presumption that she would do so only for advancement. This is a legal principle that is honored by the law, not ridiculed. It is perfectly acceptable for a wife or a child to expect advancement in relationships like this, not disadvantag3e. If this woman has changed her situation to marry this man, due to undertakings that he made, and in fact is now in a much more tenuous and disadvantaged position, why shouldn't she seek compensation and the protection of the law?
To those who believe that she has to cower away with her tail between her legs because the man ceases to love and respect her enough to honor his promises and obligations, I think you really do need to do some EQ adjustment.
Take yourself to a good lawyer, Funky Toes. Do not listen to these people who expect you to suffer not just the loss of the relationship, but also financial loses, and self-esteem. Hold your head up. You are doing nothing wrong in demanding your rights.
Please support our advertisers:
bananabender, i think you are getting this wrong.
nobody (or at least not many sane people) tell funky toes to forgo the law and money, etc. most people tell her to consider two things before going full head on into a divorce lawsuit with a lawyer:
1. consider what is a fair solution for herself after knowing all the facts (the law, the financial situation, her personal sacrifices she made for him, sacrifices he made for her, etc.)
2. consider what a lawsuit does to her sanity, and to her wallet by paying lawyer fees, etc.
3. once she has considered these two points, she should be working out the range of solutions that would still be agreeable to her without going through a divorce lawsuit.
4. then she should be sitting the guy down and negotiate with him. in fact, she should be guiding him in his own thinking process so that he can also work out for himself what is a fair range of solutions he could agree to instead of a divorce lawsuit.
5. after that, they should negotiate and see whether there is common ground.
only if all this fails and you cannot find a middle ground, i would recommend a lawsuit.
btw this is common knowledge in any negotiation situation - business, private, etc. the law is always only your fallback position never your starting point, because any sane person knows that achieving an objective through a lawsuit will at best leave only one person winning, at worst both people will lose.
Please support our advertisers:
Funky Toes:
you said "some other stuff happened in this past day" What happend in these days ?
Please support our advertisers:
Funky Toes:
Do NEVER make any decision in anger.
Can you give any more details? did you guys ever argue about any other things ?
Please support our advertisers:
That's somewhat true Cookie 09 about the law.
I don't think I'm getting this situation wrong. I do not think the suggestion that Funky Toes is a freeloader and a mere fly-by-night are justified.
Mediation or conciliation is mandatory in most disputes these days. The law is not, however, a 'back up position', a trial is. The law is the backbone of disputes. One cannot argue one's case if there is no law. It is the basis on which most people proceed, but of course, one ought not to leap into a trial. Over 90% of cases never go to trial, and that was even before compulsory mediation and conciliation. This is partly because most people, usually on the advice of a lawyer, can do a risk assessment, and this is very helpful to assist people to decide on a settlement.
Funky Toes asked to know her rights. That is a good starting place, so too of course is her back-up plan or BATNA. I am, afterall, also a qualified mediator.
Please support our advertisers:
You must be logged in to be able to reply.
Login now
Copy Link
Facebook
Gmail
Mail