Cyprus-Forum.com

[donyork]

Well, if a husband goes to a casino and loses all his money, he cannot expect that his wife then sells the family home and puts her and the kids out on the street. She might, of course, but cannot be forced to do so either in the UK or the US — provided, of course, that she has joint title to the property. Her title is not extinguished because her better half owes money to a third party. You cannot sell half a house. Of course, in matrimonial break-ups, a court may order a property to be sold and the proceeds divided between them but that is a different branch of law and has no bearing on the Orams case. To affect their joint title there would have to be a joint order, and there cannot be since he is not a defendant. Candounas the lawyer rushed his hand, and I am afraid he cannot plead the law only when it suits him. He screwed up. Lawyers often do that, of course. Even sometimes, the good ones. The GC court may yet give him his order against Mrs Orams but it is worth damn all in the UK. Don't want to spoil the party, but that is the fact of the matter, as time will tell...

[Saint Jimmy]

Donyork, all this has been quite enlightening for poor old us.
I just have one question: can this case not act as precedent (provided this Candounas character actually wins) for future cases, where there might not be such an issue of joint ownership? In that sense, the decision won't be worth nothing, right?

[boulio]

Well, if a husband goes to a casino and loses all his money, he cannot expect that his wife then sells the family home and puts her and the kids out on the street. She might, of course, but cannot be forced to do so either in the UK or the US

loses what money exactly?cash on hand or if he gets a line of credit?if he gets a line of credit you must put something up for colleteral,if the house is put up and they dont pay,then the casino cant put a leen on the house which then can have a court execute the leen.like i said i dont know british law but im sure it is not much different than US,you cannot claim indifference in the courts and im sure that applyies to spousel indifference as well.Mr.Oram cannot say my wife is a jackass for bying the property therefore im protected.

[Piratis]

Justice will be served. There are more than one ways to do it.

[Saint Jimmy]

loses what money exactly?cash on hand or if he gets a line of credit?if he gets a line of credit you must put something up for colleteral,if the house is put up and they dont pay,then the casino cant put a leen on the house which then can have a court execute the leen.like i said i dont know british law but im sure it is not much different than US,you cannot claim indifference in the courts and im sure that applyies to spousel indifference as well.Mr.Oram cannot say my wife is a jackass for bying the property therefore im protected.

Boulio, for a guy who lives in a country where gambling is not allowed, you sure know an awful lot about the issue! Are you writing from jail cell?

Seriously though, that's a good point...

[brother]

That was really great donyork, but then why all this fuss, surely the laws you stated are known to many, then why all this fuss if it is going to amount to nothing.

[boulio]

saint jimmy shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

in my past life.

[donyork]

The problem is whether you can actually serve a valid summons in the north in any future instances. The GC lawyer has rather got himself in a mess, by jumping the gun on the ruling now due to be given on May 11. There are international law precedents which cannot be ignored in respect of courts in de facto states — Court of Appeal London 1978, ECHR 2000 — to mention only two in which it is held that those living in an unrecognised state are nonetheless entitled to rely for protection of their rights on the legal system there in force. Marriages for example but also everyday life — business contracts, or disputes of one sort of another. So in civil and commercial affairs there is a presumption in international law that de facto courts have the same standing as de jure courts. This means that a summons has to be endorsed by the local court in order to be served in its jurisdiction (and northern Cyprus has a jurisdiction which is why the south cannot enforce its orders there. Citing the presence of Turkish troops is a red herring). The Orams case has been very successful in generating press stories and in scaring off prospective buyers — surely the point of it — but it is not good law and ultimately will end up in the legal graveyard. Doubtless something else will take its place, but as a runner, this one is doomed and GCs would be advised not to put any more political capital into it. When in a hole, goes the advice, stop digging.

[erolz]

Justice will be served. There are more than one ways to do it.

Justice will be served over lost property you mean?

I see no prospect of their ever being any justice served on those that took my (innocent) uncle and killed him - or for those that did likewsie to other Cypriots on both sides. Do you see nay such prospects for justice being served in these cases? Or is it only to be served on lost property?

[magikthrill]

erol,

again...
the innocent victims who lost their lives was a tragic thing no doubt. but this is in the past. the property issue is of the present and of the future.

thats what makes the two situatoins so different...