What happened to that money Carla gave her for the Bookies? I am sure she even gave her more than her shares were worth. She can't of spent it that easily as Nick had been keeping her and Simon and paying most of the bills.
Quick answer - he shouldn't have to. She's on dicey ground for any maintenance for herself given their marriage lasted less than a year. There is no way on earth he should be responsible for Simon.
As far as i'm aware Leanne should have that money for her half od the Bookies in the Bank as she didn't invest it anywhere and has been living off Nick since she got it. That is what she should be using for simon since he was the reason she got it. She'll be after money from Carla as Simon's current stepmother next.
She's a horrible gold digging tart and that's all there is to it.
What happened to that money Carla gave her for the Bookies? I am sure she even gave her more than her shares were worth. She can't of spent it that easily as Nick had been keeping her and Simon and paying most of the bills.
Carla was an idiot to give Leanne her asking price. I guess it shows how irritated Carla got of Leanne to get her off her and Peter's back. In retrospective terms, Carla shouldn't have bought her out; that was the start of Peters feeling emasculated:p
It is the law; that is what happens when a couple divorce.
For Leanne perhaps though probably not much given the length of their marriage. There is no way he should be financially responsible for her step child from a former marriage, especially when the father is still alive even if unable to currently earn.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Why should Nick have to pay for Simon he isn't his kid. For that matter Simon isn't Leanne's kid either she stole him from Peter. When she splits with Kal is she going to rinse him for maintenance as well? She'll then move onto a new fella and leech off him whilst collecting money from Peter Nick and Kal. She'll make a fortune.
Yes but I thought it's the man who's the actual father that has to pay money for his child. I didn't think the step Dad had to.
Especially as he is not actually Simon's step father. He is the man that simon's step mother married after her divorce from Simon. I don't think he has any legal responsibility to Simon whatsoever. It would be different if Leanne had adopted Simon - she would then be his legal mother so her husband his step father but as far as i'm aware she never did adopt Simon.
The fact is, this situation (a former step mother and her new husband have residency of a child whilst their father and current step mother remain alive) is incredibly unusual so doesn't come up much in the Law.
As to who would get what in a divorce case, really it depends on how good their lawyers are as there are precedents bot ways - for someone getting half of pre existing assets and also for them being deemed outside of community property as bought prior to the relationship and them only being entitled to half of what was acquired during the marriage - sometimes not even that if the other party can prove they contributed nothing in terms of earning money or maintaining the home, raising a family.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Why should Nick have to pay for Simon he isn't his kid. For that matter Simon isn't Leanne's kid either she stole him from Peter. When she splits with Kal is she going to rinse him for maintenance as well? She'll then move onto a new fella and leech off him whilst collecting money from Peter Nick and Kal. She'll make a fortune.
Yes I bet she'll go for half the Gym when she and Kal inevitably split just because she's worked the coffee machine a few times! She doesn't even need a kid to do it, remember her forcing Danny Baldwin to pay her off when they split?
Nick wouldn't have to pay spousal maintenance as Lianne is perfectly capable of earning her own money. If she'd been a stay at home Wife/Mum for the last 10 years then maybe the courts would deem her as unable to earn but she's never been out of work. The marriage only lasted 5 minutes and she committed adultery etc etc.
Nick doesn't have PR for Simon does he? I don't think Lianne is officially his LG. I'm sure it was just an arrangement between Peter and Lianne. So Lianne has no grounds to ask for maintenance for Simon either.
She probably does have grounds for constructive dismissal though.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Why should Nick have to pay for Simon he isn't his kid. For that matter Simon isn't Leanne's kid either she stole him from Peter. When she splits with Kal is she going to rinse him for maintenance as well? She'll then move onto a new fella and leech off him whilst collecting money from Peter Nick and Kal. She'll make a fortune.
Nick wouldn't have to pay spousal maintenance as Lianne is perfectly capable of earning her own money. If she'd been a stay at home Wife/Mum for the last 10 years then maybe the courts would deem her as unable to earn but she's never been out of work. The marriage only lasted 5 minutes and she committed adultery etc etc.
Nick doesn't have PR for Simon does he? I don't think Lianne is officially his LG. I'm sure it was just an arrangement between Peter and Lianne. So Lianne has no grounds to ask for maintenance for Simon either.
She probably does have grounds for constructive dismissal though.
Simon was asked who he wanted to live with; he chose to live with Leanne; he had hoped that Leanne and his father would be together again, I feel sure - perhaps they will one day.
Leanne has residency order for Simon which Peter has never sought to have revoked; so she is his legal guardian.
Simon was asked who he wanted to live with; he chose to live with Leanne; he had hoped that Leanne and his father would be together again, I feel sure - perhaps they will one day.
Leanne has residency order for Simon which Peter has never sought to have revoked; so she is his legal guardian.
She's his legal guardian but not his legal mother as far as i'm aware so Nick doesn't have any legal responsibility towards him despite being married to Leanne.
Nick wouldn't have to pay spousal maintenance as Lianne is perfectly capable of earning her own money. If she'd been a stay at home Wife/Mum for the last 10 years then maybe the courts would deem her as unable to earn but she's never been out of work. The marriage only lasted 5 minutes and she committed adultery etc etc.
Nick doesn't have PR for Simon does he? I don't think Lianne is officially his LG. I'm sure it was just an arrangement between Peter and Lianne. So Lianne has no grounds to ask for maintenance for Simon either.
She probably does have grounds for constructive dismissal though.
All good points about Leanne's ability to work. Plus it could be argued that she gained valuable experience managing Nick's restaurant, a role she had little official qualifications or training for and arguably wouldn't have got if she hadn't been sleeping with the owner. It would, as you say, be different if she'd been keeping house and eaising his kids through years of marriage. If anything, if his health problems continue to cause him difficulty, he might be able to make a case for needing maintenance from her as it was an injury sustained during their marriage.
It's not cut and dried re community property, a very good lawyer can argue reasons why people should get more or less than the usual 50 per cent depending on what they've done throughout the marriage, their financial status at the start of it etc. Look at Paul McCartney and Heather Mills!
I don't actually remember Peter signing any forms officially handing over residency to Leanne - je got straight on a boat overseas after it was agreed he'd live with her as I recall but I guess we must assume he contacted a lawyer to sort it out when he was in America.
All good points about Leanne's ability to work. Plus it could be argued that she gained valuable experience managing Nick's restaurant, a role she had little official qualifications or training for and arguably wouldn't have got if she hadn't been sleeping with the owner. It would, as you say, be different if she'd been keeping house and eaising his kids through years of marriage. If anything, if his health problems continue to cause him difficulty, he might be able to make a case for needing maintenance from her as it was an injury sustained during their marriage.
It's not cut and dried re community property, a very good lawyer can argue reasons why people should get more or less than the usual 50 per cent depending on what they've done throughout the marriage, their financial status at the start of it etc. Look at Paul McCartney and Heather Mills!
Well she did once own and run her own restaurant, badly as it turned out, so she had to induce some poor sap to burn it down for her in an insurance scam.
I don't actually remember Peter signing any forms officially handing over residency to Leanne - je got straight on a boat overseas after it was agreed he'd live with her as I recall but I guess we must assume he contacted a lawyer to sort it out when he was in America.
Well she did once own and run her own restaurant, badly as it turned out, so she had to induce some poor sap to burn it down for her in an insurance scam.
Exactly - she had experience but not successful experience with her own restaurant (which won't look good on her cv) although I do seem to recall she was managing a bar or restaurant when Peter tracked her down after Danson's last maternity leave and to be fair, she did run the Bookies fairly well.
Especially as he is not actually Simon's step father. He is the man that simon's step mother married after her divorce from Simon. I don't think he has any legal responsibility to Simon whatsoever. It would be different if Leanne had adopted Simon - she would then be his legal mother so her husband his step father but as far as i'm aware she never did adopt Simon.
The fact is, this situation (a former step mother and her new husband have residency of a child whilst their father and current step mother remain alive) is incredibly unusual so doesn't come up much in the Law.
As to who would get what in a divorce case, really it depends on how good their lawyers are as there are precedents bot ways - for someone getting half of pre existing assets and also for them being deemed outside of community property as bought prior to the relationship and them only being entitled to half of what was acquired during the marriage - sometimes not even that if the other party can prove they contributed nothing in terms of earning money or maintaining the home, raising a family.
Comments
As far as i'm aware Leanne should have that money for her half od the Bookies in the Bank as she didn't invest it anywhere and has been living off Nick since she got it. That is what she should be using for simon since he was the reason she got it. She'll be after money from Carla as Simon's current stepmother next.
She's a horrible gold digging tart and that's all there is to it.
It is the law; that is what happens when a couple divorce.
Carla was an idiot to give Leanne her asking price. I guess it shows how irritated Carla got of Leanne to get her off her and Peter's back. In retrospective terms, Carla shouldn't have bought her out; that was the start of Peters feeling emasculated:p
The law is not right and encourages leechers.
For Leanne perhaps though probably not much given the length of their marriage. There is no way he should be financially responsible for her step child from a former marriage, especially when the father is still alive even if unable to currently earn.
Yes but I thought it's the man who's the actual father that has to pay money for his child. I didn't think the step Dad had to.
Especially as he is not actually Simon's step father. He is the man that simon's step mother married after her divorce from Simon. I don't think he has any legal responsibility to Simon whatsoever. It would be different if Leanne had adopted Simon - she would then be his legal mother so her husband his step father but as far as i'm aware she never did adopt Simon.
The fact is, this situation (a former step mother and her new husband have residency of a child whilst their father and current step mother remain alive) is incredibly unusual so doesn't come up much in the Law.
As to who would get what in a divorce case, really it depends on how good their lawyers are as there are precedents bot ways - for someone getting half of pre existing assets and also for them being deemed outside of community property as bought prior to the relationship and them only being entitled to half of what was acquired during the marriage - sometimes not even that if the other party can prove they contributed nothing in terms of earning money or maintaining the home, raising a family.
Yes I bet she'll go for half the Gym when she and Kal inevitably split just because she's worked the coffee machine a few times! She doesn't even need a kid to do it, remember her forcing Danny Baldwin to pay her off when they split?
Nick doesn't have PR for Simon does he? I don't think Lianne is officially his LG. I'm sure it was just an arrangement between Peter and Lianne. So Lianne has no grounds to ask for maintenance for Simon either.
She probably does have grounds for constructive dismissal though.
Simon was asked who he wanted to live with; he chose to live with Leanne; he had hoped that Leanne and his father would be together again, I feel sure - perhaps they will one day.
Leanne has residency order for Simon which Peter has never sought to have revoked; so she is his legal guardian.
She's his legal guardian but not his legal mother as far as i'm aware so Nick doesn't have any legal responsibility towards him despite being married to Leanne.
All good points about Leanne's ability to work. Plus it could be argued that she gained valuable experience managing Nick's restaurant, a role she had little official qualifications or training for and arguably wouldn't have got if she hadn't been sleeping with the owner. It would, as you say, be different if she'd been keeping house and eaising his kids through years of marriage. If anything, if his health problems continue to cause him difficulty, he might be able to make a case for needing maintenance from her as it was an injury sustained during their marriage.
It's not cut and dried re community property, a very good lawyer can argue reasons why people should get more or less than the usual 50 per cent depending on what they've done throughout the marriage, their financial status at the start of it etc. Look at Paul McCartney and Heather Mills!
Well she did once own and run her own restaurant, badly as it turned out, so she had to induce some poor sap to burn it down for her in an insurance scam.
IIRC she said that she needed money to support Simon.
There's a difference between using money she gets to support Simon and telling Nick that he needs to make maintenance payments for Simon.
Ah, legal papers are rarely seen in soapyland.:)
True.
Exactly - she had experience but not successful experience with her own restaurant (which won't look good on her cv) although I do seem to recall she was managing a bar or restaurant when Peter tracked her down after Danson's last maternity leave and to be fair, she did run the Bookies fairly well.
Sorry, but a Freudian moment there!:D
Oh yes, sorry!!!!