Can anybody tell us if it's legal to bring to court a marital "breach of contract" case if you are a non resident of that country? Thinking of the Mills vs MaCartney case Though here in the UK that has been off the statute books since 1970...Australia 1975
Which country and what story about 'breach of contract' and the McCartneys are you referring to? Why would any foreign court have jurisdiction over their divorce?
Posts: 509 | Location: Australia | Registered: 02-19-03
Adi It is Paul McCartney ((Beatles) and his (soon to be ) ex Heather Mills - McCartney some quotes
quote:
Heather, who has already reportedly rejected a £30 million offer
quote:
the former model may be about to dish the dirt on their bitter split as she has already received a string of requests to appear on US TV chat shows.
quote:
Heather reportedly turned down the offer of £30 million to avoid a court battle and some have suggested she may be entitled to up to a quarter of Paul's estimated £825 million fortune.
Talk about money grabbing! £30 million is over 2 big lottery wins in the UK ...Rumours say she is going for £50 million More here
They are battling this out in the UK legal rules for the moment but... there was a whisper that it would go to the US as McCartney has assets in the US...Hence my point in the topic...Would they accept this under the US legal system re Money also marital status But of course any divorce paperwork would be handled in the country where they married?
Posts: 12911 | Location: 6 miles west of Wigan UK | Registered: 06-05-02
Apparently not. If she could do it and it was in her interests she would have filed in California. I can't think that a US court would accept jurisdiction in this case. The 'proper law of the contract' , to borrow a phrase from Comparative Law, is that of England and the parties are rooted in England.
The Press bandy silly figures about. This marriage is just beyond what we call short. There are no children of the union. The wife has not materially contributed to the wealth or income of the marriage either directly or indirectly (i.e by freeing him to build a business ). The ending of the marriage does not deny her the future benefits of her input. We don't know how the matrimonial assets are e.g whether anything is in her name or joint names but we do know that an English court pays little attention to such arrangements and will shift title and make orders as it thinks just.(That's why there's no such think as a pre-nup, except among the innocent and ignorant here It's the real reason why Sir Paul did not have one: it was nothing to do with love or romance ) She is entitled to have now a standard of living which is appropriate to a married woman in her circumstances.
That does not run into very serious money. Her case is vastly different from others that have made headlines here. Some of those were of wives who had spent many years building the business with their husbands and who had suddenly been thrown over for some younger model. They of course are entitled to their share and that may be hundreds of millions.
I fail to see what this case would have to do with any American court.
So they do: my slip ! However this young child won't affect the question of settlement much. Dependent children only really come into the equation in longer marriages where their existence serves to emphasise the hitherto long term stability and gravity of the relationship. A man who "ups and leaves" the several children with their mother may expect to pay a high price for the hurt , in every sense.
Any divorced fathers sharing the opinion that children have little bearing on the eventual outcome of the divorce settlement (even if they are only 3 years old)?
Posts: 509 | Location: Australia | Registered: 02-19-03
£30 million is over 2 big lottery wins in the UK ...Rumours say she is going for £50 million 
It's the real reason why Sir Paul did not have one: it was nothing to do with love or romance ) She is entitled to have now a standard of living which is appropriate to a married woman in her circumstances. 
