|
One of the parties who performed manual labor wants to interpret the word to
mean effort and gain an interest in the property under that interpretation.
How does it stand in the group?
The parties, whose signatures are below, wish to state clearly their
ownership interests in the property
Stipulations:
1.) The entire source of funding for the purchase of this
property comes from a conversion of cash assets acquired by the H. either
prior to the marriage of the parties or acquired by inheritance or gains
thereon or by income derived from pension income entitlements earned by the
H. prior to the marriage.
2.) The W., in spite of the absence financial assets to
participate in this purchase is included on the mortgage loan for the
following reasons: to facilitate her placement on the Deed of ownership, to
facilitate her clear and unobstructed access to full ownership rights in the
event of the H. death, and to provide a means by which she can earn by her
own labor a rightful ownership interest in the property. And lastly, though
not anticipating a failure in the relationship - to state clearly how the
ownership interests will be determined should such a failure occur. This is
to protect the H., in the unlikely event of such a thing happening, from the
W. acquiring an un-rightful interest in assets or the conversion thereof or
the appreciation thereon properly belonging to the H.
3.) The parties agree that the source of funding for
payment of the mortgage and property taxes and condo fees and closing costs
will be made from the pension earnings of the husband or earnings on the
pension earnings of the H.
Therefore; the following points are agreed, in the event of a failure in the
relationship:
How ownership interest or share shall be calculated:
The parties will calculate their interests based on the ratio of their
individual contribution of earnings (Pension, wages, or gains thereon) as
reported on Federal Income Tax forms (1040 and variants). The earnings
period will be calculated from the year of closing on the property to the
year of failure. Simply stated, all income reported to the IRS will summed
for those years. Each party's contribution to that total will be the basis
of their interest share in the property.
The form of transferring share from the minority interest/share holder to
the majority interest/share holder.
The choice of disposition of the property, that is; whether to sell or buy
out the other party will reside with the party holding the majority
interest/share.
How the property will be valued.
The property will be valued by the assessment carried on the Volusia county
tax rolls of the current year excluding the
|
| |
| |
On 06 Dec 2004, "Kelly A Gomas" <KAGomas@BellSouth.net> wrote:
One of the parties who performed manual labor wants
to interpret the word "labor" as used below to mean
effort and gain an interest in the property under that
interpretation.
[ An agreement between a now divorcing husband and
wife now resident in Fla. drafted solely by the husband
provides in pertinent part: ]
Stipulations:
1. The entire source of funding for the purchase
of th[e subject] property comes from . . . assets
acquired by . . . H prior to the marriage . . . or [from]
gains thereon or by income derived from pension
income entitlements earned by the H prior to the marriage.
In other words, you appear to be saying, (absent a clearer written
agreement elsewhere providing otherwise) at least some (concdedly, it
appears, a small part) of the wherewithal for the purchase are
"marital" assets (i.e., income earned during the parties marriage) --
an issue perhaps not signficant, standing alone, but certainly one
about which the in this respect careless drafter has invited
litigation if W is inclined to pursue this issue.
2. [Despite her not having contributed in direct monetary
terms to the purchase] W . . . is included on the mortgage
loan . . . to facilitate her placement on the Deed of ownership,
to facilitate her clear and unobstructed access to full
ownership rights [if H dies before her while she and H are
still married], . . . to provide a means by which she can earn
by her own labor a rightful ownership interest in the property
. . . . [and] to state clearly how the ownership interests will
be determined [if the marriage is latter dissovled to preven]
W [from] acquiring an un-rightful interest in assets or the
conversion thereof or the appreciation thereon properly belonging
to . . . H.
This provision is facially dishonest and at least in effect in
material part contradicts the first "stipulation" above. The
dishonest element is of course that it isn't true that W's agreeing to
become bound by the mortgage is "to facilitate [her name's] placement
on the Deed of ownership" -- since (obviously) a pen or typewriter is
all that is needed to "facilitate" such "placement" -- and since there
are any number of other ways to "facilitate" her said access to the
property -- e.g., by giving her a key and not thereafter changing the
locks without giving her a key to the new locks.
The (in effect) contradictory part is of course that that W's agreeing
to be bound jointly and severally as a debtor on a mortgage loan whe
was not otherwise obliged to incur is not a direct contribution of
cash out of her pocket but certainly belies H's representation above
that he has provided the "entire [sic] source of funding for the
purchase" from his pre-marital assets.
3. [ H will pay the mortgage and property taxes
and condo fees and closing costs from his pension
earnings or from earnings on the his pension
earnings. ]
Therefore . . . in the event of a failure in the
relationship: . . .
Query whether it is too perverse to ask whether in the litigation
between the parties to which you refer W has claimed that the divorce
has resulted less from "a failure in the relationship" than from some
sort of affirmative misconduct towards her by H such that the "party"
(evidently, the wife) whom you describe as having performed "manual
labor" is not bound by an agreement drafted by H that shall apply in
case of a "failure" rather than some other reason for the break-up?
. . . The parties will calculate their interests based
on the ratio of their individual contribution of
earnings (Pension, wages, or gains thereon) as reported
on Federal Income Tax forms (1040 and variants) . . .
from the year of closing on the property to the year
of failure . . . . [such that] all income reported to the
IRS will summed for those years . . . . [with e]ach party's
contribution to that total [to] be the basis of their
interest share in the property.
The form of transferring share from the minority
interest/share holder to the majority interest/share
holder.
The choice of disposition of the property, that is;
whether to sell or buy out the other party will reside
with the party holding the majority interest/share.
* * * The property will be valuded by the assessment
carried on the Volusia county tax rolls of the current year
excluding [presumably stated exclusions].
Assuming that this (apparently: post-nuptial?) agreement is executed
with the formalities required in the state to give this agreement any
deference (the OP doesn't actually so say), and not to put too fine a
point on the matter, but, nonetheless, bearing in mind the generally
prevailing Fla. decisional law rules (and multi-part so-called "tests"
or "standards") for determining whether these sorts of provisions
shall be enforceable, query what the basis is for determining that
these provisions are (as is required in the state to be enforceable)
basically "fair" (or "equitable")?
Perhaps it would not be necessary to pose these questions if it did
not appear from the OP's other related newsgroup postings that he is
indeed the "he" who is the drafter (the "H" here at issue) who in
related contexts has been focusing on formalisms (hardly just what
"labor" is said in general to "mean" based on "surrounding words" used
in a contract) and yet who has not addressed what (if she wakes up and
pays attention if she hasn't already sought to do this) W might
claim/argue -- namely, that regardless what "labor" as used in the one
above agreement is said to "mean" (and, indeed, insofar as this
particular agreement is concerned, presuming arguendo the narrowest
possible interpretation as against W and in favor of H), in ruling on
the parties' allocation of assets/liabilities and all other related
financial provisions entailed by their divorce as a whole, might Fla's
version of equitable distribution principles be applied in effect to
credit W with other of their marital assets so as to make
fair/equitable the terms of their financial split-up?
( Note, meanwhile, that the OP has yet to specify what the nature of
the "manual labor" at issue has been [perhaps, lewd minds might
wonder?] or how the respective parties themselves had [of course,
before the "failure of the rleationship"] valued either/both the
"manual" or "labor" element. )
|
| |
| |
society could be found that would reconcile
freedom with modern technology. In the next few sections we will give
more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological
progress are incompatible.
RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
114. As explained in paragraph 65-67, 70-73, modern man is strapped
down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on
the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot
influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of
arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any
technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate human
behavior closely in order to function. At work, people have to do what
they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos.
Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any
substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would
disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to
differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their
discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be
eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by
large organizations is necessary for the functioning of
industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of
powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however,
that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by
psyc
|
| |
| |
|
