Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
33 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the order you look at the statute for Scotland financial provision? |
S 8(2), S10(4), s10(1), s.9(1)(a), s.9(1)(b), s.9(1)(c), s.9(1)(d), s9(1)(e) |
|
|
What was held in Skarpass v Skarpass? |
Mr skarpass had been injured in a car accident the parties were married, when decided to get divorce the pay out for crash hadn't been awarded yet, she argued that his right to sue was the asset and she could make claim on that as it had occurred during the marriage, the court agreed with wife. |
|
|
What was held in Mitchell v Mitchell? |
House that had been purchased in contemplation of marriage, court agreed with wife and said the house was bought with the view of yous two living together as husband and wife dk is matrimonial property |
|
|
What happens to gifted property or property given due to succession in Scotland? |
It doesn't go into the matrimonial pot, if spouses give gifts to each other that's matrimonial assets. If someone gives gift to both of them then that is joint property. |
|
|
What was held in Parker v Parker? |
Experts gave vastly different valuations on the house so court just met in the middle |
|
|
What does s.10(3A) state? |
That you can have ur property valued at a closer date as the price of the property may have increased or decreased |
|
|
What does section 10(5) state? |
That pensions are to be included as matrimonial property |
|
|
What is the pension formula? |
Cash equivalent transfer value x years in scheme whilst married decided by total years in scheme |
|
|
What happens if one party has a pension and the other does not but there are available assets? |
If assets are available the spouse with pension can pay money in substitute of share in pension |
|
|
What happens if one party has a pension and the other does not but there are no available assets? |
A lump sum order - possible where the pensions contains a lump sum payable on death or retirement. The pension will be shared when it matures, requires a qualifying agreement between parties. |
|
|
What is a fair share? |
Fair share is an equal share |
|
|
What are special circumstances under in the 1985 act? |
S 10(6) |
|
|
What was held in Jacques v Jacques? |
There might be some special circumstances but can't differ from equal sharing, house and title in joint names but husband largely funded this, court said shouldn't pay too much attention to what title says |
|
|
Under section 9(1)(d) a person who is reliant on the financial support of the other person financial provision will be given but what is this capped at? |
3 years |
|
|
Is the conduct of the party a special circumstance? |
No, unless the conduct has affected the financial resources or in relation to 9(1)(d)&(e) principles it would be manifestly inequitable to leave the conduct out of account |
|
|
What does section 18 do? |
It's a security mechanism, in the year after the disposal of the financial claim a spouse discovers that in the previous 5 years the other spouse has disposed of assets he may apply to the court for an order to set aside or vary that transfer |
|
|
What does economic advantage mean? |
Advantage gained before or during the marriage. Gains in capital, income or earning capacity. |
|
|
What does s.11(2) state? |
Economic advantages or disadvantages which have any imbalance will be corrected by a sharing of the value of the matrimonial property |
|
|
What does section 11(3) state? |
To do with children and fair sharing of economic burden of child care |
|
|
What is the principle philosophy underlying the family law (Scotland) act? |
There should be as far as possible a clean break between the parties |
|
|
What was held in K v K? |
The sum payable to the wife was reduced given she had significant resources available to her already whereas the husband had very little |
|
|
What are the special circumstances where the court may go against equal sharing? |
1. Source of funds 2. Nature of the matrimonial property (e.g. House for children 3. The destroying dissipating or alienating the assets 4. Agreement between the parties on how it's to be distributed (prenuptial agreements) |
|
|
What was held in davidson v davidson? |
Wife got more than half a share of the matrimonial property as it was purchased entirely by the wife with money she inherited |
|
|
What was held in cordiner v cordiner? |
Where short marriage and no children it may depart from equal sharing where one party has payed for everything |
|
|
What was held in Scott v Scott? |
Husband had paid a significant deposit on the home with money from pre-relationship damages, held this money should be retired to the husband first before the remaining value split |
|
|
What was held in peacock v peacock? |
Nature of property. If home was to be divided both spouses couldn't afford to buy new home to house the two children, husband transfer his half share to wife |
|
|
What was held in Mayor v Mayor? |
Unevenly divided as used by spouse to run business |
|
|
What was held in short v short? |
Wife dissipated assets by fraudulently borrowing on the security of home, her half share was reduced subtracting the debt she ran up |
|
|
What does the court do in relation to prenuptial agreements? |
The court will enforce it unless any term in it is successfully challenged on the ground that it was not fair and reasonable at the time that it was entered into |
|
|
What is balancing economic advantage and disadvantage? |
Where one party has suffered economic disadvantage the matrimonial property should be divided unequally |
|
|
What was held in coyle v coyle? |
Wife had given up successful career at her husbands request to look after children and do domestic tasks, court did not agree with her as there was no obvious connection between the increase in the value of his business and her non-financial domestic contributions |
|
|
What was held in Morrison v Morrison? |
Fair sharing of economic burden of childcare. Wife awarded 2/3 of value of home and contests so she could look after children |
|
|
What was held in Barclay v Barclay? |
Wife was disabled, court declined to make an award as although she was suffering serious financial hardship it was not caused but the separation and pending divorce but by her disability |
