being sued and transfering ownership of house to spouse
r.bartlett
in court in a dispute with a rather large company. As a company we
have all the necessary insurances (we believe) but we have been stung
before by an insurance company refusing to pay a claim and us stumping
out a largish sum to the other party.
So with huge penalty clauses I'm starting to worrry about losing our
home if TSHTF. It's joint ownership but my wife doesn't contribute
financially as she's a stay at home mum. I have absolutely no qualms
in signing my half over if it protects us from them. I also have a
flat which is in my name only, could/should I sign that over too
J.I.C?
Please don't worry about things like "What happens if she leaves you?"
type stuff etc as that is not a concern
Any help and advice most welcome
Richard
steve robinson
If you dispose of any assetts including transfering them into your wifes name below
there market value whilst you are in dispute and possible subject to court action
the courts can order that the asets be returned so thier is no real advantage to
doing this .
You could also lay yourself wide open to legal action including a criminal
conviction if you deliberatly try to decieve the courts as to the value of your
asets
peterwn
wrote:
But only if there is an actual dispute, not a potential dispute. The
OP definitely should take action to protect personal assets such as
forming a company or putting assets into a trust. A professional
person may not be able to operate through a company and probably the
best thing is to insure through a company with ties to the relevant
professional association. OP should seek legal advice and show the
lawyer relevant contracts.
Big Les Wade
>I am a partner in a sme. we have a potential whereby we could end up
>in court in a dispute with a rather large company.
IP?
>As a company we
>have all the necessary insurances (we believe) but we have been stung
>before by an insurance company refusing to pay a claim and us stumping
>out a largish sum to the other party.
What was the claim for and why did they refuse? Just interested.
>So with huge penalty clauses I'm starting to worrry about losing our
>home if TSHTF.
Isn't your company limited liability? If so, the litigator couldn't come
after you as director, unless the liability is a personal one (such as
negligence or libel).
>It's joint ownership but my wife doesn't contribute
>financially as she's a stay at home mum. I have absolutely no qualms
>in signing my half over if it protects us from them. I also have a
>flat which is in my name only, could/should I sign that over too
>J.I.C?
Yes, you can do that.
--
Les
Conspiracy theory: A suspicion that officials sometimes mislead the public in
order to protect their own interests.
Chris R
steve robinson opined:
I think that's poor advice. In general with insolvency matters you are
better off doing something, even in the knowledge that it might not work,
than doing nothing and lossing your assets. Even the most blatant cases of
sheltering assets are often not pursued for one reason or another. The
earlier such things are done, the better. So yew, in the OP's circumstances
I would transfer the properties. If at all possible, incorporate the
business into a company or LLP, but that will not help with existing
disputes.
Chris R
Ste
wrote:
And in the meantime, the court may make an order for security against
the OP, which will mean him having to pledge his assets anyway in
order to proceed with the case.
Chris R
> the OP, which will mean him having to pledge his assets anyway in
> order to proceed with the case.
Really? AFAIK it's extremely care for a security for costs order to be made
against an individual resident in the UK, or indeed against any defendant.
Chris R
Chris R
Chris R opined:
> all possible, incorporate the business into a company or LLP, but
> that will not help with existing disputes.
I should add that I am not advocating misleading a court or anyone else
about the value of the OP's assets - any transfers must be genuine gifts or
sales, not just transferring into another name whilst retaining real
ownership.
>
> Chris R
Road_Hog
"r.bartlett" <bartl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:14f1545a-1dea-4a3d...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>I am a partner in a sme. we have a potential whereby we could end up
> in court in a dispute with a rather large company.
> Richard
I always thought, that if it was a limited company (as it's an SME, I'm
assuming it is), you had limited liability, i.e. the company's assets, only
were at risk, not personal assets. Unless of course you'd issued a personal
guarantee. Have I got this wrong?
Paul Stevenson
"r.bartlett" <bartl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:14f1545a-1dea-4a3d...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
What is an sme?
steve robinson
Why so Chris , the op has already implied that they are in dispute with a company
which is likely to end in court any action the op takes now to hide assets to avoid
possible loss if they lose the case will enevitably result in further legal action
to recover the costs , we are not talking insolvency here we are talking companies
in dispute and the winner ultimatly will want to recover as much as possible
It may however be prudant that he puts in place a structure for the future that will
protect from any action then but as for now if he does transfer the asets then its
reasonable to expect the other parties involved to go after them if they win
steve robinson
He is not being sued as an individual resident , he is being sued as a business
steve robinson
Gifts or not if they are of significant value are transfered just prior or during
the dispute /court case and the op loses the case the courts can and will order
either there return or there value to be repaid , its also a criminal offence to
dispose of asets in such a manor as to attempt to prevent creditors access to them
Peter Crosland
>> in court in a dispute with a rather large company. As a company we
>> have all the necessary insurances (we believe) but we have been stung
>> before by an insurance company refusing to pay a claim and us stumping
>> out a largish sum to the other party.
>> So with huge penalty clauses I'm starting to worrry about losing our
>> home if TSHTF. It's joint ownership but my wife doesn't contribute
>> financially as she's a stay at home mum. I have absolutely no qualms
>> in signing my half over if it protects us from them. I also have a
>> flat which is in my name only, could/should I sign that over too
>> J.I.C?
>>
>> Please don't worry about things like "What happens if she leaves you?"
>> type stuff etc as that is not a concern
>>
>> Any help and advice most welcome
>>
>> Richard
>
> What is an sme?
Please learne to Google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_and_medium_enterprises
Peter Crosland
Road_Hog
"Paul Stevenson" <paul.p...@phonecoop.coop> wrote in message
news:7abndkF...@mid.individual.net...
Small to medium enterprise (company).
Chris R
Yes, I'm familar with section 423 insolvency Act 1986, and I remain of the
view that it is often better to carry out the transaction and, if a claim is
made, settle the claim rather than just allow the creditors to take
everything
> its also a criminal offence to dispose of asets in such a
> manor as to attempt to prevent creditors access to them
Really? Things must be different in your manor to mine. Please cite the
statute.
Chris R
Chris R
steve robinson opined:
He is an individual, and I don't think an order can be made against him for
security for costs. It appears the business is a partnership, though not on
much evidence frm the OP's post. An order fro security for costs will not be
made against a defendant partnership, so far as i can recall - I'm rusty on
this as someone with more knowledge of security for costs may be able to
comment. I believe orders for security are more often made against
claimants, and even then only when they are limited companies with
insufficient assets, or overseas parties whose assets are outside the
jurisdiction.
Chris R
Chris R
steve robinson opined:
> with a company which is likely to end in court any action the op
> takes now to hide assets to avoid possible loss if they lose the case
> will enevitably result in further legal action to recover the costs ,
> we are not talking insolvency here we are talking companies in
> dispute and the winner ultimatly will want to recover as much as
> possible
>
> It may however be prudant that he puts in place a structure for the
> future that will protect from any action then but as for now if he
> does transfer the asets then its reasonable to expect the other
> parties involved to go after them if they win
There are a lot of if's in there. It could be two year or more down the line
that the claimant gets judgment, the insurers refuse to pay, the business
(I'm assuming a partnership on the basis taht the OP mentioned "partner" and
not "company" can't pay from own resources, the other partners don't pay and
the claim ends up with the OP. the claimant then somehow has to find out
about the transaction two years previously, demonstrate that it was intended
to defeat what was at the time a highly contentious and contingent claim and
that the OP was not solvent at the time, and bring his claim. If at that
point the OP's wife offers to settle the claim for half the amount claimed,
the liquidator/creditor is quite likely to accept it.
I say again, I am not advocating concealing assets. I am saying that if the
OP chooses to give them away, the worst that is likely to happen is that the
person they were given to is asked to give them back.
Chris R
Ste
I imagine it is fairly rare, but I don't think the court would
hesitate where it can be shown a party is disposing of assets to avoid
the costs of litigation. That said, I take your other point which is
that we're not sure whether the OP is being sued as an individual, or
simply whether he is underwriting the business in one way or another.