Estoppel 2

[Tiger786]

Just a quick update
Sat with my solicitor today to prepare my defense he seems to think any money my ex husband spent is taken as both as I was looking at decree absolute
I did not understand this bit
Any property which or an interest in which is devised to the former spouse had died on the date on which the marriage is dissolved unless a contrary intention appeases in the will.

[EDDIE51]

Tiger you have been told at least 10 times that once you got divorced the promise ceased to exist. Why is it so hard to understand? You do not like it but refusing to believe it will not change anything.

[jackthehat]

Based on the facts you have given.....we really don't need to.

[EDDIE51]

Estoppal ONLY applies where a provable and valid promise was made.
In your case the 'promise' is NOT either provable OR valid .

[Tiger786]

R any of you solicitors kind question not trying to be rude

[Tiger786]

Ok Eddie explain how you prove estoppel

[jackthehat]

You have been advised by at least one *barrister* on this matter, which I would say trumps any barrack-room Solicitors on this thread.

Some of us on here have *some* legal knowledge, and to be perfectly honest, you don't need a great deal of legal insight, to know that your case is hopeless.

[EDDIE51]

you would prove estoppal by providing proof of the promise, for example if it was written down and signed. Or there were several independent witnesses who were prepared to swear on oath that the promise was made. None of this applies in your case.The promise also has to be valid which as I just told you yours is not.( it died when you got divorced)

[boxtops]

Sleeping on it isn't going to change the case, Tiger - look back on the other thread, and see all the advice given to you by the barrister on here (Barmaid), and the others with legal experience and backgrounds.

[jno]

a biddy who is unavailable at the moment has found these sites, which may provide some helpful advice

http://www.dad.info/dad-talk-forum/finance/23152-refusing-to-go

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404981-estoppel

[boxtops]

That second one says it Tiger herself, jno, (under her original AB username) posting as her in-laws, unless I am very much mistaken.....

[jno]

both appear to be, boxtops. I can only assume the advice given on them was insufficient in some way; but it may prevent some helpful ABers repeating suggestions unnecessarily.

[boxtops]

You're right, jno, "tiger" is claiming to be her ex's parent in that thread (or they are using a common ID) - and that one is running to 12 pages now, too, with exactly the same advice being given, as as been given on here. No case to answer.

[boxtops]

...and on the dads one, the Tiger ID is being used by someone in the role of the ex-husband. This is getting very convoluted by every turn.

[THEMOTLEY1]

You and various others on here keep referring to your *in-laws*
you seem to be forgetting you are divorced, you do not have any in-laws, you are no longer a part of the family.

[jno]

it's always useful to try to see the situation from all sides, I suppose, boxtops. Anyway, I think I'll leave it at that; I don't want to appear to be indulging in pointless speculation about the OP.

[boxtops]

..and the Dad thread says they were living with HER parents. Derrrr....

[boxtops]

You're right, jno. I'll wish you goodnight :-)

[netibiza]

And those links are quite old.

[Peter Pedant]

I think we should all 'fess up and say we aren't solicitors.
It also solves a lot of problems.

[Peter Pedant]

see above - Dad post posted over a year ago
lets not say these threads arent long running....

and the consumer thread sums up p.estoppel quite well....

well if you are going to get a second opinion - why not a third and fourth ?
Go on long enough and you will almost certainly get an opinion that agrees with you.