说的太对了， 渣男的新高度。
在英国出生的香港人后代 ，很传统的香港人。
垃圾前夫，离婚是对的
If he can prove that although he did have direct financial contribution to the property, but he had made indirect contributions, such as childcare, discharging household bills, acting to his detriment on the belief that he will obtain some beneficial interest in the property (for example, he has compromised his career for the sake of your relationship etc) ， he might be able to establish beneficial interests in the property, although the legal title vested only in you.
如果有婚前协议 (Pre-nuptial agreements)，另当别论。
以前我们是平摊，共同抚养，孩子的福利钱是打在孩子的账户，但是孩子的账户上有我和她的共同名字。所以我和他都可以把钱取出来。自从封城之后孩子一直是跟着他。抚养费，我不是不愿意给，但是他用这个不让孩子见我让我多给抚养费，按理说我们一半的时间照顾孩子是不用互相给的，这样就是鼓励他问我要钱，鼓励他给我孩子洗脑，不让他见我。
这个说得对，但是这是我们共同商量的，我们都不用 。因为不需要去花这个钱。 后来他生意失败，拿前期的孩子福利前去抵债了。
谢谢 我也觉得是，当年我觉得带着孩子死掉算了。他在英国出生，我在这里没有亲人没有工作，总算现在混出点样子了。
离婚这么久而且clean break的话对方基本上不会胜诉的， 凡是按照法律走流程就是了
Thank you for your detailed reply . Even we divorced and change the deeds 11 years ago , he still can do that ? The mortgage was on interest only at the time , I wasn’t working I was stay home mum. . We separated like 5 months after we bought the house. I doubt he can proof he paid all the bills at the time . At the time , he has to agree and sign the paperwork before I can take his name off the deeds and the mortgage .
离婚证上是有说没有财产纠纷 ， 但是没有clean break 这个词
没事 这么久了都过去了 孩子为啥不争取过来
我已经问过专业意见了 我没有不要抚养权 一直都是两人共同的抚养权
Did you make a declaration of trust when you purchased the property? The declaration should include whether you are holding the property as joint tenants or tenants in common or solely owned by one of you. Even if the legal title only vests in you, he can still establish some shares of beneficiary interests of the property if the judges can be convinced that he had acted to his detriment on the common intention that he will obtain such an interest. For example, he had compromised his career for the child caring for years.
When you say ‘he has to sign’…. Does it mean that he has no other choices? The paper work he had signed might be voidable as he could argue that he was under an undue influence.
What you said makes 100% sense. However, through the louzhu’s description of her ex-husband, he has no money and no legal common sense, otherwise he would not wait so long to think of prosecuting louzhu,
In fact, this is more like he is threatening her and wants her to give him a sum of money as soon as possible. I don’t think her ex-husband can convince the judge about his contribution to the property without hiring a lawyer and establish his detriment on the common intention . After all,at first the two parties agreed to raise children together .
Thank you for taking time read my post and explain in details . I will check it out !
Thank you so much
见识到了 华人还是很多人不懂英国的规则