• Our popular and beloved forums are finally back, after being down since April 2018 due to hosting and server issues. We have now switched to a better platform, while maintenaing all data as it was before (contents and user names) . Thank you for your patience and loyalty. If you have any questions, need to report an error, or are having trouble logging in, please email us at: assyrianvoice@rogers.com

This is a bit worrying, how is Canada still standing?

mrzurnaci

Active member
Assyrian Nationalist said:
That's a lot for such a religious minority in Canada.

Left wingers in the Western world are hoping that being inclusive would make Muslim kids grow up to be secular, is it working? Not sure.
 

mrzurnaci

Active member
Cascade said:
Not surprised. I'm pretty sure we have these in Australia too.

which reminds me, Australia seems to be destroying the notion of marriage by making prenups void.
 

mrzurnaci

Active member
Mr. Tambourine Man said:
Mind explaining this one?

nasha it's self explanatory, why do prenups exist? Now imagine if the government uses an excuse to nullify all prenups... What do you think is going to happen?
 
mrzurnaci said:
nasha it's self explanatory, why do prenups exist? Now imagine if the government uses an excuse to nullify all prenups... What do you think is going to happen?

Australia has a legal system that makes divorce the absolute last resort often having numerous stipulations and requirements that even allow for a divorce to go through.

A prenup is a legally binding agreement, which isn't mandatory, that outlines how money/assets/property would be distributed in case of a divorce. If anything it supports marriage because it puts the onus on the individuals to truly trust each other.
 

mrzurnaci

Active member
Mr. Tambourine Man said:
Australia has a legal system that makes divorce the absolute last resort often having numerous stipulations and requirements that even allow for a divorce to go through.

A prenup is a legally binding agreement, which isn't mandatory, that outlines how money/assets/property would be distributed in case of a divorce. If anything it supports marriage because it puts the onus on the individuals to truly trust each other.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/landmark-high-court-ruling-spells-death-knell-of-prenuptial-agreements-in-australia-experts-say/news-story/0a1ff008a26ddfe50a3421f90053db49

"The decision in Thorne v Kennedy, in which a young Eastern European woman successfully fought to overturn a prenup she signed on the eve of her marriage to a millionaire property developer twice her age, has sent shockwaves through the family law fraternity and could trigger a wave of lawsuits seeking to overturn existing financial agreements.

From a paltry $50,000 she would have been entitled to under the previous agreement, the woman is now set to become a millionaire in her own right.

?Even the lawyers within my team, the young ones, they don?t realise the significance of this yet,? said Slater and Gordon family law expert Heather McKinnon. ?It?s really funny. The High Court doesn?t enter our jurisdiction very often ? the last [decision] was probably seven or eight years ago ? but when it does, it?s significant.?

The landmark case, which has been closely watched by family and commercial lawyers, started way back in 2006 when the then 67-year-old property developer met the 36-year-old woman on a website for potential brides.

Mr Kennedy told Ms Thorne ? both pseudonyms, as neither party can be identified in a Family Court case ? shortly after they met online, ?If I like you I will marry you but you will have to sign paper. My money is for my children.?

Mr Kennedy, a divorcee with three adult children, had assets worth between $18-$24 million, while Ms Thorne had no substantial assets and spoke limited English. Seven months after they met, she moved to Australia to marry Mr Kennedy.

The primary judge noted that Ms Thorne left behind ?her life and minimal possessions? and that ?if the relationship ended, she would have nothing, no job, no visa, no home, no place, no community?.

Shortly before the wedding, Ms Thorne signed the prenup at the insistence of Mr Kennedy, who threatened to call off the wedding if she did not sign.

That was despite independent legal advice that the agreement was ?entirely inappropriate? and the worst her solicitor had ever seen. She then signed another agreement 30 days after the wedding.

Together, the agreements limited her claim to any property settlement to $50,000 after three or more years of marriage. The pair divorced in 2011 after three years of marriage. Ms Thorne took her ex-husband to court in 2012 seeking for the agreements to be overturned.

She sought a property settlement of $1.24 million, including spousal maintenance. Mr Kennedy died in 2014, but his estate continued to fight against Ms Thorne?s bid for a bigger slice of his wealth.

The Federal Circuit Court initially found in favour of Ms Thorne, on the basis that her consent had been negated by way of ?undue influence and duress?. Mr Kennedy?s estate appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia."

Well?
 

mrzurnaci

Active member
Mr. Tambourine Man said:
I see your point, fair enough. That case is shocking too.

I wish I wasn't right either, allowing prenups to be null and voided at will stop many men from considering marriage.
 
Top