Law

Assignment 7. 2 On voluntary separation
a.) Apparently, the provisions of living apart as ground for divorce were met in the case of Fred and Gail. They separated voluntarily, they were separated for almost two years, and they never had contact except when Gail informed Fred that she is going to file a divorce with him. Apparently, their separation was meant to think seriously about whether reconciliation is possible. On the part of Gail, she finally made up her mind that reconciliation is no longer possible when she refused Freds plead to let him come back. There are enough reasons to believe that Gail realized that even if they would live together again, it will not work with her anymore and her refusal for Freds pleas was her final stand. Since this was what the law requires, she is therefore entitled of her petition for divorce.

b.) Tom does not qualify to divorce his wife on the ground of living apart because their separation was not voluntary nor it is pursuant to a court order. Further more, they were only separated for four months which was two months short than what is required by law which is six months to three years. Finally, the obvious reason for Toms filing a divorce was that he met another woman. This cannot be at any rate acceptable as it is unfair and unjust to his wife Karen.

c.)    Bill and Susan do not qualify to file a divorce although they are living separate lives for over three years. Living a part means they absolutely have nothing to do with each other. They do not communicate, they are not seeing each other and more importantly they are not cohabiting with each. In the case of Bill and Susan, they are living under one roof they still have still had anything to do with each other although it is rare. They have not experienced yet to live away from each other
Assignment 7. 13 On property division order

Sandra should file enforcement of the court decision. In the case of John and Sandra, it appears that they already had a settlement and the court had already made its ruling. Only that John was unwilling to give what was belong her. Regardless of the reason why John was ignoring her to give her, her share of the sale of their used car, John should respect the court decision by giving exactly what his wife deserved. Any way she has all the right to demand fair share of their conjugal properties.

Assignment 8.1 On collusive divorce
a.).    The first clause is collusive in the sense that there is a conspiracy between the husband and wife in order to get a divorce. In this clause, not filing of defense even if the husband can, means that he is agreeing with the wife even if the grounds cited in the petition for divorce is not true in order to make it appear before the court they qualify substantively for divorce. No defense means the other party is falsely affirming what had been presented in the court is right thereby committing fraud on the court. No defense is used

b.)      The second clause improperly facilitates divorce because while the husband may not be qualified for divorce for some reason, living his hope to his wife to divorce him, he will shoulder all expenses in advance incurred by the wife to bring an action. In this case, this action is tantamount to bribery which is an improper way of facilitating divorce.

c.)       The third clause is also a collusive divorce because the husband agrees to cooperate fully. This just short of saying I will do anything for this to happen this can be anther form of no defense. Cooperating fully simply means he is willing to conspire just to make it happen.

Assignment 8.3 On separation agreement
a.)    No Mrs. Bell was obviously not coerced into signing the separation agreement. Apparently there was a bargaining between Mrs. Bell and Mr. Bell regarding the sharing of properties. Mr. Bell simply used Mrs. Bells illicit affair with another man as bargaining against her whom she recognized and freely bargain with Mr. Bell on the ground of asking additional from what Mr. Bell has set. It is therefore true that she did not act under duress or undue influence but her guilty conscience made her bargaining position with Mr. Bell weak.

b.)     Argument in favor of Dianne. The honorable judges of the Supreme Court of Maryland It is hereby brought to your attention a particular case in which a decision was unjustly made as the appellant Mrs. Diane Bell was coerced into signing a document which its content unfairly favors the appellees (Mr. Stanley Bell) position. Evidence reveals that Mr. Bell hired detectives to spy on Mrs. Bells activity in order to use the findings against her. He then blackmailed Mrs. Bell threatening that he will made public all the information gathered against her if she refuse to sign the document prepared by Mr. Bell. To protect her reputation, Mrs. Bell was pressured to sign the document. We are hereby appeal the decision to the wisdom of this honorable court.

In favor of Mr. Bell
It is hereby maintained that there was no coercion happened, and Mrs. Bell was not coerced in any manner to sign the document. To the honorable court, let it be known that there was a free bargaining between Mr. Bell and Mrs. Bell on the issue as reflected in the taped conversation between the two parties. It was clear that Mrs. Bell has all the right and freedom and was not pressured to sign the document. The transcript of the conversation further reflects that the bargaining was freely conducted. Therefore It is requested justice be served in favor of the appellee.

I would say the case will be decided in the same way the existing decision was decided the merits of the evidences presented.

Not necessarily The separation agreement can be enforce even if it is not fair. In Maryland where it is true that there is a culture of male dominance, contract can be enforce even if it is not fare. Unfairness of the contract may be caused by the distinction between statuses of the couples economically, educationally, and intellectually.