I think I'm correct in saying that under England & Wales laws it doesn't matter if the couple are married or not, if they share the same home for a minimal period of time then she becomes entitled to 50% of whatever he owns of that home.
As for the lawsuits and compensation claims allegation nonsense, sound to me like someone has a hand, or head, stuck up their arse again!
not to throw another wrench... but if she is transferring the apt to the daughter to protect against her having to sell the apt for said debt, that would be a case of hiding her assets to preclude the possibility of the apt being used as an alternative for repayment. if that is the case then there is an admission - by the fact of hiding assets - that there may in fact be an obligation to repay something. unless it is just a paranoid action.
who is going to continue paying for utilities after she is gone? is the daughter going to rack up a debt of nonpayment or are you going to support the daughter by helping to defray the cost of utilities? one way or another - mom is not going to abandon the daughter - you are going to become liable for this. it has been said often that even after a woman leaves her FSU country she has a family obligation to take care of her own. and they usually do. it is the same reason we of high character seek out these women. it comes with the territory. be prepared to support the daughter even though she is left behind.
another option is to hook her (daughter) up with durak or rb. now that's funny! I don't care who you are, that's funny! but my vote would go to durak for sure.
mini - you are in a very sensitive position at this time. my guess is that the MIL doesn't have a leg to stand on. but knowing a few things about the country and policies, anything can happen. be prepared for the worst but hope for the best. you will probably settle for something in between.
Ivor, I don't know, but your argument sounds unlikely. One of the things I remember in my Business Law class is American Law is derived from English Law. What Ralph and Danny said are true of American Law. Think back. When the Duchess of York divorced the prince, did she end up with half of his assets?
The best way to protect your assets before marriage is not to commingle them with your assets after marriage. If you do, lawyers will find a way to declare it community property.
Ralph I disagree you with you. Lawyers speak of "conscience of guilt" but that is just one more reason that they are despised, because they do not care about right or wrong. They only care about " can I make a case for that". They do not even consider the validity of a case if there is no money in it. The more assets, the more validity there is in a case. Every time I lower myself to speaking to a lawyer, I ask, "Who pays for lunch, the winner of the case or the loser". I get double talk, but I never receive an answer. Pieces of shit!!!
This is getting kinda funny.......daughter surely has lots of time to wait,5 year plan or even a 10 year plan.......
Back to OP.....it was clearly stated that Mini knew of debts of this girl for 2 years.
She knows how true the debts are/aren't, if she is honest in telling truth then it is her and Mini to decide what to do. There looms a chance that authorities maybe getting involved (due to MIL). Put it this way, how much of ones integrity is going to be played, are you going to backdoor your way out of a true debt or stand up and due what is right. We all know that MIL is asking for repayment ONLY because girl 'may' have the $$$ now(Mini)to pay up. I know what I would do!!!!
Some good news! As it turns out the "Statute of limitations" expired on January 31 and her lawyer says the mother-in-law does not have a legal right to collect any money from my fiance. Mother-in-law never really did because there were no papers signed and it was a "gift" to her son, whom my fiancee was married to at the time. This clears the way for her coming, her interview is on March 4th. Hurray!
Ten years for the Statute of Limitations? Was the website I refered you to wrong? It said in the absence of any written agreement, the Statute of Limitations is one year. With a written agreement it is three years. In the US, most states are four years.
Some questions remain in my mind, but the main thing is you got the problem solved. Perhaps you can iron them out when things calm down, or not at all.
1. The paragraph below came from the website I posted on the 9th of February.
"If, on the other hand, the term of maturity is not specified or is defined by the time of claim, then, in the absence of other agreements, the surety's obligation terminates upon expiration of 1 year from the time when the surety agreement was entered."
Any law that puts gives an oral agreement, without anything written, a Statute of Limitations of over a year, is quite silly. Ten years? Arguments for and against fade over time.
2. January 31st is an exact date. This was ten years ago? There are no documents? Where did that date come from?
3. "there were no papers signed and it was a "gift" to her son"
Was it a gift or a loan? It is one or the other. The Statute of Limitations is a solid defense. It being a gift is shaky. You can't argue both in court. The Statute of Limitations is irrelevant on a gift. I would question if that statement came from a lawyer at all.
Just my thoughts. I am not a lawyer. I will save my congratulations until you get them over here. Best of luck, Mini Cooper.