Ham pr disasters 41! ..untitled!

[jeffgoldblum]

Still interested, still not bored!

Oh my god!!

In England inheritances are not automatically considered marital assets either.

Side note, but has anyone seen the pic on the BBC news site of Laura K interviewing CS? The way her bum is perched on the edge of her chair, I'm surprised she didn't slip off and land on the floor. Or perhaps she did, who knows.

I have only seen a clip, but she is a terrible interviewer.

The balance of it (the remaining £19m) would be considered community property subject to a ruling by the judge and that's normally divided 50/50, so M would theoretically get £9.5m. The rule is basically 'if you use any of it for the family, you intend ALL of it for the family's use therefore you intend for it to belong to the family'. Theoretically, if H had taken only £5 to buy the hamlets ice creams that could be enough to allow a judge to rule the rest of it as community property.

The law here is pretty specific and it's relatively easy to 'shelter' an inheritance as long as you don't intend to touch it in any way.

Just a reminder to anyone wondering, this is specific to the State of California. Other states have their own laws.

The law here is pretty specific and it's relatively easy to 'shelter' an inheritance as long as you don't intend to touch it in any way.

Wasn't that what H said about one of his inheritances? That he was going to save it for the children?

What if it was tied up so he could only access the interest, not the capital? (I mean, HMTLQ wasn't stupid and I'm sure she'd have sought advice on this....)

@jeffgoldblum

So looks like that pool pic was taken last month around her the time of her 45th birthday, so theoretically about 3 weeks before their return to the UK. She does think ahead, doesn't she?

Something more lighthearted - Cotswold social advice for the Sussexes

https://archive.is/zQtVe

Thanks for the additional detail, @AcrossthePond55, and the "don't spend the inheritance on the family unless you want to share it on divorce" has a lot of similarities to our system in the UK

This thing of having to be in the US state for 6 months (and in the county for 3) though ... does that time have to be immediately before filing for divorce, or would the time someone had spent there in the past count (presumably providing it wasn't too long ago)?

Something more lighthearted - Cotswold social advice for the Sussexes

Ben Elliott, a nephew of Camilla? The Bamfords, who I believe were in the Ascot carriage procession this year? The Beckhams, who hang out with William via the FA? Clarkson, who loathes M? And Badminton, that once hosted Queen Mary? They've got no chance.

He’s presenting more of a case for abolishing the aristocracy - imagine if his inherited pile was repossessed. He certainly proves the ‘you get the face you deserve’ theory.

If it was in his sole name and he used the interest, that makes it community property. You cannot add to, take away from, or touch in any way the principle or the interest.

As for a trust under a child's name, if he put it in an irrevocable trust for the child it would NOT be community property, but it would be illegal for him to use any of the money other than directly for the child's individual needs, ie school fees fine, new furniture for the house the child lives in, no. So a withdrawal wouldn't make the trust community property, but he could be in breach of fiduciary duty, and the law, depending on what the withdrawal was for.

If it was put in a revocable trust and funds were withdrawn it might commute the trust to community property, a judge would have to examine the trust, its stipulations, and the reason for withdrawal.

Literally, is there anything actually about Diana in this book?

It must be immediately preceding and you must be 'currently resident'. She cannot file a California divorce from the UK, she must physically be here. But establishing residence does have some loopholes. The exceptions are something like a vacation, a job secondment, or a military tour. The issue is whether or not you have 'established residency' in another jurisdiction.

So let's say I do the proper paperwork with UK authorities and move to the UK, get a flat, open utility accounts, move my finances to a UK bank, but still keep my US home. For all intents and purposes (and assuming no evidence to the contrary) I have established UK residency for CA divorce purposes. If I decide I don't like it and hop back here in say, 3 months, my clock starts over again barring a ruling from a judge. But if I do all this and let it be widely known that it's only 'for a little while to tour the country and wave from a few balconies get a taste of British Life' then I go home 5 months later it could be determined that I never established residency in the UK as I always intended to return and I would meet the 6 month requirement right away.

At this point only having been gone about a month and not having bought or rented a residence, opened utilities, etc, she could certainly argue that it was a 'temporary absence' but the publicity around it being a move of long duration and especially having enrolled the hamlets in UK schools as well as saying they were here for the duration of the educations (so what, at least 10 years?) would seem to belie that. I doubt very much that a judge would consider a prospective and 'avowed' 10 year absence as 'temporary'. But her announcement that she would be back and forth from here to there could mean that she never actually loses her residency. The time split isn't set in stone, a judge would have to rule but I feel safe in saying that she'd need to spend more time here than there.

There are also residency exceptions if your spouse has been at least 6 months in California even if you've moved away. But that wouldn't apply to MM as H isn't here. It might apply to H (who established CA residency some time back) if MM moves back and he wants to divorce her under CA law, which he might if there are inherited funds involved. If he moves back in that situation he wouldn't need to wait the 6 months.

Badminton? Where he can reprise his party trick of throwing young women into the pool? Meghan first, she can post the pictures in her instagram.

Harry should get security now he’s in the UK, says Earl Spencer.

So, all part of some sort of grifting master plan. I grift, you grift, I grift on your behalf, you support my grift……You get the grift..

https://www.thetimes.com/article/4357694a-9715-4723-86f1-9d5f18f0c471?shareToken=b8269714f7768ec69b416196ab05ef0c

CS is now claiming William & Harry were aware of the inflammatory comments allegedly made by King Charles. CS is a snake who knows no depths he will stoop too to make some £££££

Warmest thanks, @AcrossthePond55; you've made that beautifully clear

Meghan has the completely wrong body shape for that dress .

Thank you @AcrossthePond55

so CS says that both William and harry were there when PC as was said that their mother will be forgotten soon. This whole thing is horrendous.

I actually cannot believe how far he is going with this. W&h were kids at that time. How could they be aware? I really hope PW makes a statement to say absolutely not and that his father would never say such a cruel thing. H won't say anything as he's in the hole with CS

Did he dip into Meghan’s bronzer after hitting up her dentist for new veneers !

So he told them that? What a piece of work.