DIVORCE

[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability, the. [00:00:04] Speaker B: All new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5 My name is Davey Murray and I'm sitting here with the segment known as the Law and you with Andisa Wes. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. [00:00:16] Speaker A: Good morning. [00:00:17] Speaker B: You know, you come talk this morning looking bright and refreshed. [00:00:20] Speaker A: Gil, you think so? [00:00:21] Speaker B: You slept well last night? [00:00:22] Speaker A: Well, I mean, today might be a light day, but you have to try, you have to try to at least put yourself out there sometimes when you're feeling down, essentially. [00:00:31] Speaker B: But you, you don't ever look like you're feeling well, you, in the legal profession, people just come to you when they're feeling. [00:00:36] Speaker A: That's very true. [00:00:38] Speaker B: Well, good morning to you and I'm happy that you're here early with us this morning. Let's start into our conversations this morning. And one of the things I want to touch on, we're touching on two items this morning. One dealing with that lawsuit that promoters are threatening government with if they do not rethink their position with the sporting facilities. And we're going to touch a little bit about divorce, some of the misconceptions arising out of persons seeking this dreaded item known as divorce. Yes. All right, so let's start quickly with the ban. What leverage do you think promoters have as it relates to getting some kind of compensation if the government don't rethink its position? [00:01:15] Speaker A: Right. So the thing about that is I feel as though that particular situation would be very fact specific. So we have to determine whether these persons already entered into contract, entered into agreements to use these venues before this ban was imposed. Because the fact of the matter is carnival is a season where persons look forward to, to make their money, quite literally. And I was following some of the persons who are heavily involved in carnival and the carnival parties, etc. And the hundred Days to Carnival launched, I believe it was sometimes in sometime in October. So we are less than 100 days to Carnival and then to be told that the band is being in place, more than likely these party promoters, etc, these persons hosting these fets, would have already made arrangements in anticipation for that particular event happening. So if they would have already entered into an agreement into some kind of arrangement for the use of that particular venue, and then I'm thinking if they spent money relying on or at least hoping that they would be able to use that venue, then possibly they might be able to get some compensation. But that I would, I think would depend heavily on whether they had already entered into agreements to use the particular venues. [00:02:37] Speaker B: But and if they haven't. But you know, these fetes are synonymous with certain venues. Water is O2 Park. [00:02:46] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:02:47] Speaker B: You know, this Waterfet experience usually goes to the Brian Lara stadium. [00:02:52] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:02:52] Speaker B: So these are ticketed items where it's customary, like where. Where do we host Calypso Fiesta? Yeah, Skinner Park. Right. So these places are synonymous with certain facts. But now that there's a band, you're saying that promoters would have gone up, would have already started preparation. [00:03:06] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:03:07] Speaker B: But in starting your preparation, if you have not entered into agreement with the sporting facility to use the sporting facility, how could you seek redress? [00:03:16] Speaker A: So it doesn't necessarily need to be a written agreement alone. They could probably already entered into oral agreements with these persons. But I'm thinking you don't have the right to use any of these venues. So it would even liken itself if it was a private venue. You can come and say that you have a right to come and use this venue. If I decide that I'm not going to do it anymore. So really, actually it depends on whether this person enter into a written or oral arrangement to use the venue. But without that, you can't necessarily come and say, hey, hey, I have a right to use this particular venue. But the thing about it is that what they could possibly do is try to have some kind of talks or some kind of consultation or, you know, come together and, you know, have conversations surrounding it. But I wouldn't necessarily think that because Calypso Fiesta is held at Skinner Pack that they have the right to use Skinner Pack as of right. It really and truly depends on whether the owner of that particular venue, this, in this case, it being the government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago decides to allow that venue to be used. You know, so it really is that. I mean, it could possibly enter into the realm of legitimate expectation, but I mean, that would require a whole lot of other considerations and then you ain't. [00:04:30] Speaker B: Gonna get a judgment on that anytime soon. [00:04:33] Speaker A: So I think that, to me, to be quite honest, my personal opinion is that the entire situation is a bit sad, given that I expected at least, because I mean, As I said, 100 days to Carnival already launched. So you're already thinking that this is the season you're leading up to the season. As soon as Christmas Day is done, we are going to start hearing SOCA on the radio, because people look forward to the Carnival period, to make their money, quite literally. And it isn't just the party promoters. They are the catalyst for a whole lot of a whole entire ecosystem to make money. There would be the girls who going to do makeup, who going to do nails, who going to sell clothes, the persons outside selling water drinks, the scalpers, etc. This is an entire ecosystem and some persons look forward to this particular season to make money to provide for their family and then they would budget and you know, let that rally on for a particular time and then try again. So it isn't. I, I was saying that I hope that it could have had some type of consultation at the very least to see if a middle ground could have been happened or at least implement our laws, make the EMA, ensure that the music is at a particular level, etc. Things I, I think at least for this carnival season and then possibly they could have been a band going forward. Yeah, going forward, meet and say, okay. [00:05:51] Speaker B: Let'S, this will be the last. [00:05:53] Speaker A: Yes. Make sure your music levels are on this, that, etc etc. And if they didn't follow it then, well, next year we ain't giving all your noble again, we're going straight to the band. So it just seemed as though the band, in my opinion, I don't know if they had consultations with the party promoters, the promoters association, but I don't think so because I see that they issued a release to that effect, at the very least had consultations with these persons because it isn't just wine and jam fet. These young people want to go online. This is an entire ecosystem of people that make their money from this season. [00:06:28] Speaker B: I want to, I agree with you. I thought to myself that Orel could be, hey, next year we coming back here. But then government changed. [00:06:38] Speaker A: Yeah, but I mean even if the government change. So if you entered into an agreement with the government before the government changed, I don't negate it. [00:06:45] Speaker B: You don't know what the OPV is. When we enter into agreement and we lost, you know, the blimp, we enter into agreement and we lost. So the government changing them could just decide to change things. [00:06:52] Speaker A: You know, I don't, I don't think that I would. [00:06:54] Speaker B: But that's. If it's written, that's. Yeah, it wouldn't be the best. But does government really care whether it's best or not? But the thing about it is written and down payment made can seek redress. [00:07:05] Speaker A: Yeah, because the issue is with any oral agreement, you'd have to show first of all that there was an agreement. How exactly you're going to show that and then you have to show the terms in which you agreed. [00:07:14] Speaker B: Exactly. [00:07:15] Speaker A: So oral agreements generally is a very slippery Slope or very shaky ground to be on. So the best thing would have been to have the written agreement. And I'm thinking if you're a party promoter and you're going to spend all these money then you should have your docs in a row by now I'm thinking that they should have entered into agreements for these, for these facilities. Facilities because first of all you wouldn't want somebody to come after and take the venue from you and things like that. So more than likely I am thinking, I don't know if anybody ever interviewed any of the parties, these promoters, I know there's an association as well to hear their views on it. But I'm thinking that at the very least 100 days accountable already launched, they probably already entered into some kind of something. But if with all that I'm thinking that you can't just come and say hey, I demand that I should use this particular venue as of right, I don't think that would work. [00:08:01] Speaker B: And I'm happy that you said that because I was of that, of that consensus. And one person says the, the sporting agencies or facilities doesn't belong to the government along to the people. Hey, watch me. We own the police too because we did our tax paying dollars pays their salaries. We own public servants, we own the twin towers. We just pay to maintain the twin towers. We own it but it's run by a governmental authority and they reserve the right. [00:08:26] Speaker A: But at the end of the day that's how our system works. We appoint our governments to make decisions on our behalf. [00:08:31] Speaker B: On our behalf and they made a decision whether they like it or not. Yeah, that's just how it is. [00:08:35] Speaker A: But if you don't like it, I'm thinking that you should probably try to have some kind of talks with the government. You can't just sit and say yeah well this happening and you're just having rum shock talks essentially and that's not going to help anything if you feel strongly about it. And I think that the association and all these, all these different players within this entire ecosystem should come together and figure out a reasonable alternative and go to the government with it and let them know. Because at the end of the day we do recognize that the noise would be affecting the persons around. So now and I, I've heard that they were warned like sometimes they were warned and they continue to be at high levels. So now you have to go and say well I'm not going to do it anymore, I'm going to stay within the decibels and all these different things because There are regulations already in place to regulate that, in my opinion. [00:09:19] Speaker B: Beautiful. Let's get to part one, because I know this will be a series. I'm anticipating it. Well, I am seeing that as we wrap up the first part here with the promoters. In your learned opinion, if the promoters. [00:09:36] Speaker B: Made a phone call, asked for the venue to be booked, if the venue is available for this particular date, maybe this. The. The ministry would have said, yeah, whoever it is in charge of that, whatever department said, yeah, the venue is available. All right, I want to come and book it. But before they went, they made their bookings. Sometimes they would have done some flyers and probably printed flyers. [00:09:57] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:09:57] Speaker B: That they have posted up. And probably because the artwork for Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, you have to pay a graphic artist to design these things for you. [00:10:05] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:10:05] Speaker B: Those little things you see on people's state status on WhatsApp, those graphics, those things are done by. By graphic artists that they have to be paid. [00:10:14] Speaker A: Yes. Yeah. [00:10:14] Speaker B: If that is done. [00:10:17] Speaker B: E tickets. The artwork for the E tickets and tickets are done. That comes at a cost. [00:10:22] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:10:23] Speaker B: Government ban it. Before they could have reached to the bank to make a down payment and sign the contract. [00:10:28] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:10:28] Speaker B: Can they sue the government for saying that? Listen, I called, they tell me the deal was available. I called the printer. I deal with my graphic artist. I told them I would come in at a so and so day to make my down payment and sign my contract. [00:10:39] Speaker A: You could. [00:10:40] Speaker B: Could you sue for the monies that you have spent already? [00:10:42] Speaker A: That would be an oral agreement, essentially. And then you would have to prove that an oral agreement has existed. You would have to prove, okay, I made this call to this particular person. This person is an agent of. [00:10:52] Speaker B: Of the state. [00:10:52] Speaker A: Whoever. Yes, whoever is in charge of it. And they gave me representation saying that I would be using the venue on this particular day. They promised that I would be able to use the venue on that particular date. So in then. In that case. And then I spent money on our graphic designer. I spent money on tickets. People since already bought tickets, so I'd have to refund these persons. All these things is then losses that you made because this person kind of went back on the promise that they made. [00:11:16] Speaker B: But what if you had to switch the venue? Yeah, you could have said, people with tickets, you're just switching the venue instead of going there. Come here. [00:11:22] Speaker A: So that would be. That would be an also and a consideration. But then more than likely there'll be a cost attached to switching the venue. So you may be able to. And then you'd have to pay to redo flyers and things like that. So you still. You still have some type of loss. [00:11:35] Speaker B: All right, so. Because for me, it's an easy fix. If we switch the venue payment, graphic artists will take off Brand Lara stadium and put O2 Park. [00:11:44] Speaker A: But which venue? So even if it goes there, wouldn't the same. The general issue surrounding this whole ban is the fact that it is affecting the residents around. So which venue in Trinidad? [00:11:54] Speaker B: And animals. [00:11:55] Speaker A: And animals. Because we know that Brian Lara. [00:11:58] Speaker B: We understand that. But when you go O2 park, you have the wildlife around. [00:12:00] Speaker A: Right. And then there might be some persons who are very concerned about the environment, might say that that's an issue as well. So. Exactly. [00:12:09] Speaker B: In its entirety. That's where it boils down to. [00:12:12] Speaker A: And I am of. And it's not just because I'm a young person who. A party to go on. And I hardly. Well, I go to parties moderately. But what I am saying is that this is to me a way that we could generate money for the economy. And whether you see that or not is. And if you don't see that, I think that's a kind of sad position to be in. Especially when Trinidad and Tobago is often considered the Mecca of Carnival. Carnival. And there are persons coming into Carnival to stay in guest houses, to use the taxi drivers, to buy food, to go here, to go there. It's an entire ecosystem. And every single election, as I was telling you yesterday, every single election, we hear we need to diversify the economy. We need to diversify the economy. So why are we not seeing the orange economy or something? Only because it's culture. We need to take culture and the arts extremely seriously. Because as I said, there are entire ecosystem of persons who make money from this. And it could generate money for our country. Possibly we could do more to ensure that the returns come back to the country. But taking this step where you're just going to stop this and ban this isn't going to help it. [00:13:21] Speaker B: I agree. And to pay attention to the orange economy, if they want to understand what it looks like or how much money. Just look at Bollywood. Yeah, forget Bollywood. Look at Nollywood. [00:13:34] Speaker A: Just look at Hollywood. Look at. [00:13:36] Speaker B: They see. Everybody will run to Hollywood. But I went to Bali because that's in India. And then I come down to Nollywood in Africa. Yeah, right. Which is the African con. When you look at them and the movies, that's. That's an orange economy. [00:13:46] Speaker A: Yes. [00:13:46] Speaker B: And that there was a time that was booming and it still is. [00:13:50] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:13:50] Speaker B: African movies are now mainstream. On Netflix platforms. [00:13:54] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:13:55] Speaker B: So the Orange economy is a place for growth, It's a place for earning. It's a place to provide an entire, as you said, very much lucrative ecosystem. [00:14:04] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:14:04] Speaker B: And I like that. Thank you so much for sharing insight on that. Now, as we go to the divorce this morning, our conversations will start off, I know we will have a part two to this because it's a lot that we have to cover. So we will start off by. [00:14:20] Speaker B: Divorce. [00:14:21] Speaker A: Yes. [00:14:21] Speaker B: How do we reach to getting a divorce? [00:14:25] Speaker A: Right. So nobody really plans, or at least I think so, that when I'm going to get married, it will end in divorce. So when persons reach to that stage is sometimes, usually messy, but sometimes it really, it doesn't have to be. At least based on the changes that we made to our legislation. There are still some changes that I think is needed. But now the sole ground that you could use to obtain a divorce is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. And there are five facts to show that that has happened. The first being adultery. Let me just tell you exactly what they are. Adultery, unreasonable behavior, desertion. And then these two additional grounds, which I think has kind of made it less messy, is if the patients were living separately and apart for two years with the other person's consent, and then if they were living separate and apart for five years, you wouldn't need the other person's consent to get the divorce. But we have to also recognize that our laws kind of came from, not kinda, it did in fact come from England. And we know the influence that the church had on the general system. So before you had to go and you had to kind of essentially beg to get a divorce. So this change kind of made it a bit easier for that to happen with still some constraints to ensure that persons don't quickly go into the divorce. So first of the constraints is that you have to at least be married for a minimum of one year. And according to the case of Donaldson and Donaldson, Justice Brooks stated that this was to prevent persons from devaluing the hallowed institution of marriage by hastily seeking the dissolution of their marriage at the first hint of turbulence. But that doesn't mean that you would be locked into a marriage if you try to get a divorce in that year. If you could show exceptional circumstances, the Court will obviously consider it. But for the most part, you have to at least be married for at least a period of one year before you are able to get the divorce. And then if the person is willing to consent within the two year period, you're Showing even if you were living in the same house, you could still prove that you were living separate and apart during that year. You would say, okay, we are in the same house, but I am in this room, this person isn't in the other room. We haven't been having any type of relationships really, just staying here because I can't afford to go somewhere else. So once you could satisfy the court that you have lived separate and apart for a period of two years with the person's consent, you would be able to get the divorce. If you have lived separate and apart for a period of five years, like recently I had a client and they got married and they separated since I think was 1999. But they just never tried to get the divorce. So obviously no, you wouldn't need the person's consent. You could go to the court and say, well, hey, we have been living together for more than 20 years. At this point, I'm asking for a divorce. When you go to the court, the divorce is usually the quickest thing. If there isn't any contention, you go and in five minutes time, once you satisfy that you'll be living separate and apart, you have the relevant requirements, the consent, if necessary, the court will grant a decree nisi. And then you have to wait for a six week period before you make the application to get the decree absolute. And at that point the divorce is final. So that in a quick nutshell is the sole ground, which is irretrievable breakdown. You have. You'd have to prove the five facts. Adultery, desertion. [00:17:53] Speaker A: Living separately and apart for two years, five years. And then you go to the court, you make the application, you make the petition for the divorce. Divorce, you get your date, you go the first errand, you give evidence, you get a decree night sign. In six week time, you're making another application, you obtain the decree absolute. [00:18:09] Speaker B: So at what point does the court send you for counseling or. [00:18:12] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:18:13] Speaker B: What happens if they come. You're living together, so you're saying you could live together. [00:18:18] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:18:19] Speaker B: But you had no sexual relations for over a year. [00:18:22] Speaker A: Yeah, just. It could be no relations at all. And it's kind of a tricky situation because if you're relying on the fact of adultery, if the court see that you kind of rekindle for a period of more than six months, they may not grant a divorce. So the court considers all these factors because they don't want it to be that the persons are just rushing to a divorce. As a matter of fact, as an attorney, when we're filing a petition for Someone we'll have to file a document that says whether we considered if these persons had conversations with your client, if they would reconcile. So there are all these factors that would be considered. What the court will do, obviously, is consider the petition to determine that. And if we go to the first hearing and they realize there's a possibility that these two persons could reconcile, what the judge will do or what the judge will do at that point in time is adjourn the proceedings and see if. Well, tell them that you guys could go and have counsel if you want. And if you come back and you tell me that you still want a divorce, then fine. But the court wouldn't necessarily try to stop persons from getting a divorce if they want the divorce, if you want out of the marriage, why would we force these persons to stay? But if they see that there's a possibility that these persons could possibly reconcile, then they might, in that instance, adjourn the proceedings and tell them to come back and let me know if you still want to go ahead with the divorce. [00:19:41] Speaker B: All right, we have more questions. Good morning. [00:19:44] Speaker C: Good morning. So I know during our discussion, I have a question if I am. Well, I was living with my wife in this house, and we got a divorce. And I already have the decree absolute. The property is in my name. But we haven't gone to the court yet to deal with the property aspect. Property. Our kids are big on everything already. Could I have a VKD property until the court decides what we're gonna do, Any property. [00:20:14] Speaker A: So again, obviously, this is general legal advice. So let me just say that, because I don't want to necessarily tell you one thing, and when, if I see the documents, it's another, but if the both person's names are on the property or just by the fact that the person was living in there for a period of time, you can't just get the person out. What you would have to do is make an application for property settlement to the court. So I actually also dealt with something like that. And the person tried to go through the Domestic Violence act to eject the person. But ideally, when you're making the petition for the divorce, you can make other applications with that as well. So you can make applications for the child, applications for the property, etc. So ideally, you should have dealt with that during the divorce proceedings. But even if you have the absolute already, the best thing to do, because more than likely that person would have rights to the house as well, would go back to the court and make an application for property, you would have to show the court what contributions you made, the person would have to respond and let the court know what contributions they made. And then the court will make an order at the end of that. Whether it would be to sell the property and divide the earnings. Whether I, that person spent all the money so it would make sense to let that person stay. Whether one person would have to pay off the other persons, etc. So what would be the best thing in that situation, in my opinion, would be to make an application for property settlements to the courts. Yeah. [00:21:29] Speaker C: Good morning. [00:21:31] Speaker C: Davy. Morning, dear guests. [00:21:35] Speaker A: Good morning. [00:21:35] Speaker C: You know, guess. Do you. I want to suggest that before people get into marriage and relationship, I think that they made aware of all these different laws and trappings because people are just get together and love, love, love, love. I don't know. One of the biggest hate to see this wonder sometimes when you look at wedding pictures. I think the biggest hate to see sometimes that separation between two people that are married or together and wonder sometimes where that hate come from when you see all this nice weather and all the trappings and I know, I think young men and women need to get famine. I want to suggest that they familiarize themselves with all these different laws and guidelines in case of our breakup or share how we contribute together. Because they find sometimes now when, when they are faced with the law that they were ignorant of, some of them want to get violent and so on and feel they were unjustly treated. But at the end of the day, there are set guidelines and most likely dependent contributions that the court will look at and the guidelines will go along according to how the contribution and all the different factors are factoring. All right, so what do you think about that suggestion? [00:22:40] Speaker B: All right, thank you very much. Okay. I would answer first. I disagree with that. Letting the people know about the divorce. I disagree. It defeats the purpose of getting into marriage. It's like telling somebody, if you make a child, which I get dead and if you're dead, it will cause this amount of money. If you had to bury them, that defeats the purpose. I, I don't subject myself to that. We, we don't get into situations to end it bad. You don't get a job to get fired. Eventually, you know, you're entering it and you have to, you had to hope for the best. You don't leave your house. You know, if I leave my house, I could get Bong Zong. I could dead, I could get an accident. Now a bum could fall in my head. You don't think like that. So edify yourself. No, no, no, no. [00:23:26] Speaker B: That education he's asking for, best you put that into a holistic approach as how to make this thing work. [00:23:31] Speaker A: Yeah. And the thing about it, at the end of the day divorce is usually the last resort. So the first hope is that you don't necessarily have to reach a divorce in the first place. But I mean if you do, there are things in place for that. I would say though that to make your decisions wisely generally, but that is something that you should do across the board. So some issues that you often see when doing divorce proceedings, especially as it relates to the property. Because I do want to say that usually, as I said, you could get a divorce in five minutes. Five minutes. What usually takes long is the property settlement. And if there are children involved and just to note, if the parties have children, the court will grant the decree. Nice. I. But they will not grant the decree absolute until they are satisfied that these parties have made proper arrangements for the children of the marriage. So that just to put that out there. But sometimes in the property settlement what you see is that some men, and because men usually say that they are mistreated by the system, etc, etc. But sometimes some men, they usually don't have any receipts or nothing to show that they contributed to the property at all because what they do, they go, they work and then yeah, take the money and the wife is the person going out and buying whatever. So most times all the receipts is on honey. But obviously there would be way to go around that and show well, I was giving her money, etc. But just be very wise in the decisions that you're making. I know that you're in love and you want these things to happen, you want the joint accounts etc, but still be very even not to be overly suspicious of it, but when you're making the decisions in the marriage, make your decisions wisely because if it comes to divorce then those same decisions could possibly be used against you. [00:25:13] Speaker B: I want to agree with you somewhat, but for me it's, it's a sacred thing. And once you enter it, once you enter it, listen, nobody enters the end badly. [00:25:23] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:25:23] Speaker B: But if, if and when it reaches to that point, we address it. That's how I see it. [00:25:27] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:25:29] Speaker B: Good morning, Davy and Andissa. My question, My ex wife and I divorced over 20 years ago. She got remarried about four years ago. But I recently found out she is still using my last name. I want to know what are the implications of that because I'm very peeved. [00:25:48] Speaker A: Well, you can't necessarily tell someone to change name because Usually when you get married they change their name and that's just it. I actually know someone who changed their name and because they didn't want to not have the same last name as their child, they kept it. So they kept the last name and when they got married. [00:26:05] Speaker A: Hyphenated of former marriage and yeah, yeah, the current marriage name. So it's really up to the person. And just by carrying someone's name doesn't give you any rights over their property or anything like that. It's just a name that they are using. [00:26:17] Speaker B: But how much time you get people with the same last name. [00:26:19] Speaker A: Yeah, so same name. So it isn't, it doesn't make the person still, you know, they wouldn't be entitled to anything that you own or anything like that at this case. It's just that they're keeping the name. [00:26:29] Speaker B: And, and as I said, when you go in the phone book back then when we had a phone, a phone directory and see how much names is the same. Thomas, come on. That, that is. Yeah. I don't time with that. David. Morning. [00:26:43] Speaker B: What I want to find out like the Brian Lara stadium. I, I keep saying, I keep asking why it is that they don't have the fit inside the stadium. Not on, not any car park. I want to believe if you have the fit inside the, the, the stadium. All right, I guess we're going with that. We passed that part of the conversation. But hey, this is not about the car park with the stadium. Your beliefs is your beliefs. This has to do with what the government's pro. The government only stadium. They own the car park too. They own the entire property. So whether you keep, whether they say we don't want it in the car park or we don't want it any stadium that is irrefutable, that doesn't, that is future, that is in futility. [00:27:19] Speaker A: Even if you keep it in the stadium, that would create a nexus because. [00:27:22] Speaker B: They'Re damaging the ground. So I must say no, he's his argument. But it's any car park. So the government. No, no, no, no, no. The government only car park too. All right. Good morning. Good morning. [00:27:34] Speaker C: Morning. Morning folks. A beautiful topic for conversation but in reality what we are talking about, that is impossible. Marriage is an institution. The wedding is the occasion. And in most cases when people get married, especially in the younger 20s, they are married because they are attractive to each other. When one is living by either one living by the parents and they are attracted to each other, they think they are in love and they rush to get married to Be with each other. But at no point in time when they were courting, any kind of responsibility comes into the picture for conversation, like house, children, bills. Because when you get married, automatically you will start to rent because or because you're not by your parents anymore. So what you all seen in reality is a totally different when it comes to happen. That is why long ago, 40, 50 years ago, you could do your research how many divorces they have. Why are we divorced now? People know each other for 15 and 20 years, went to school, university, qualified grad. They don't know each other. How does one answer that? This is a serious conversation and we are going to have a lot of lot of divorces now because people are attracted to each other. This question of love has to be defined in the context in which we talk about now. You have a lot of legalities because of children and properties and so many things. But I my advice, I have been married for 64 years and I have seen it. And so I'm talking with a bundle and a bag of experience, and I'm still with the same person. But one of the advantages here for young people who are thinking of getting married is to talk to counselors, talk to senior citizens and get them advice. And I would end by saying a marriage is the institution. The wedding is the occasion. Thank you. [00:29:30] Speaker B: You know, I agree with him on that. Because. [00:29:34] Speaker B: Any relationship, whether it be a boyfriend, girlfriend, dating, work, is involved. [00:29:40] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:29:40] Speaker B: Complacency has no place in relationships. You have to work to maintain your relationship with your parents. Your parents have to work to maintain a relationship with you as their daughter and son. You have to work to maintain a relationship with your siblings, your past classmates, your current workmates, your friends that you have over the years. Because any relationship can break down on just a marriage. Relationships on a whole, there is work involved by both parties. Some people believe. Well, you know, is he alone or she alone? No. [00:30:07] Speaker A: Yeah. But I mean, at the same time, and I accept that. And I accept that possibly what, what we could do as a society or just as different groups is educate persons on how to, you know, conflict resolution, resolution and things like that. But at the same time, I wouldn't. I mean, it's a debate. You usually hear the back and forth about whether or not why we have more divorces. Now. It could be because now you have the ability to leave before you had no choice but to stay because you had to stay with this person who provided for the family. But now you have not taken saying that independent women is, is what is causing Divorces. But now you have women who no longer has to stay in a very abusive situation and they have the out. But that is not to say that all marriages are like that. The ones that could possibly stay, they should stay. [00:30:51] Speaker B: Yes, Good morning. [00:30:52] Speaker C: Morning to you, David. Morning to you. Guess I like the previous caller. [00:30:58] Speaker C: His, his, his contribution and the focus of marriage. But my thing is there's a question of being married one and we don't really deal with the root cause as to the beginning of a relationship and whether it should transcend into marriage because people push the whole question. The first thing is about attraction and the question of sexual intercourse and whether or not that stem, in fact that triggers the whole question of should I get married? And to me the whole discussion about relationship as to what could happen during the relationship before marriage be children or not. Whether we should address this as a stronger conversation than going into marriage or even when you get into problem to marriage going to that counselor. Because I don't believe in counselors. I believe in the whole question of parents and trying to get to the point of understanding each other as to whether you should get married or whether you should have children. I think that to me guides you on, on how they could go with a relationship that transcends into marriage. But I like the condosition. [00:32:01] Speaker B: I thank you very much for at least chiming in and sharing on something that is also non political. Good morning. [00:32:09] Speaker C: Morning. [00:32:11] Speaker C: Program. 75 to 80% it is said. [00:32:19] Speaker C: Of divorce is initiated by women. Right. Women have an incentive to leave our marriage because when they leave a marriage they get 50, 50 according to the law. Young men nowadays do not want, do not see marriage as an option because they can lose half their stuff. All right, So I think marriage nowadays, women, good women are very, very hard to find and women cheat more than men nowadays. Right. And it's not even close. Right. So I think, I think something needs to be done. The mother's not training the daughters properly. They're training the daughters to be materialistic and watch what Kai driving and how much money have any bank and where you could get from him and he holds and all kind of things. [00:33:08] Speaker B: All right, thanks. [00:33:09] Speaker A: Well, I mean you're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts. The truth of the matter is that the law doesn't say that it has to be 50, 50 rigidly. What the court will do and what usually happens is that you'd have to provide or at least show the court the contributions that you made and the contributions could be Financially, because sometimes we know that there would be a marriage where the man goes out, he works and the woman stays home and she's a stay at home wife. So it isn't strictly just the monetary contributions alone. It could also be, well, this person was taking care of the home when this person got together, this man had nothing. She was the one ensuring that he had food to go to work and seeing all the children, etc. Etc. So the court will consider all the contributions of the party, monetary, non monetary, and then determine how the assets of the marriage should be, should be split. And it would be the marital assets, what they got during the time of the marriage as well. Because sometimes some persons could come into the marriage with a whole lot of things as well. So it isn't just that the court is going to give a woman half of the things that this particular man owns. As I've seen, I've seen situations where, I mean, I've represented men as well, where they got the bigger share of the marital assets as well. But what I think and what I want to say about this conversation generally is that what we don't realize is becoming an adult is something that you have to do very intentionally. So you have to ensure you would see it like you don't realize that you're getting older. You have to sit and say, okay, I'm getting older. Now is the time for me to fix some of the traumas that I have from my childhood so that you wouldn't carry those traumas into the marriage. And then you're there and you're arguing and all these things happening between the parties. So getting to be an adult isn't just because of age. That's something that you have to do very intentionally. And so maybe the groups and maybe persons who are concerned should have different workshops with young persons to teach them how to be an adult, teach them how to resolve conflicts, teach them even how to make a home, because that is necessary. It isn't that both persons are the home and then the home in this array teach them how to take care of children. You have to realize, well, this happens to me, I don't want this to happen to my children. And I mean, at the end of the day you're going to start a life with this person. So money is also necessary. So that could be a factor that somebody will consider as well. Because what are we going to do? Just sit down and sing Kumbaya and then we can't feed the children. So this is something that you have to do very intentionally. If it doesn't work, I am still of the belief that persons should be able to get a divorce. I am of the opinion that you shouldn't force persons to stay in a relationship who doesn't necessarily want to be together, because that's a recipe for disaster. And I've seen situations where that ended in debt, where the person killed themselves and killed the woman. So if persons no longer see that it could work, then so be it. [00:35:52] Speaker B: You know, the thing about it is, you never cease to amaze me. From a qualified attorney, you know, becoming a qualified minister. Announcer, counselor. Sorry, the person who said it. Don't believe in counseling. Counseling really helps. Therapy works and. But therapy works both ways. The counselor gives advice, gives you homework sometimes, and you have to adhere to it. Yeah. All right. We definitely will have a part two, because, Andisa, you have court today. [00:36:18] Speaker A: Yeah, I do, actually. [00:36:19] Speaker B: Right. So she usually does. And this segment is that. So as we get closer to the end. [00:36:25] Speaker B: One of the things I would say is that to avoid, we mentioned adultery as the number one culprit and the first thing the court sees. But recently I was speaking to someone who even told me that they looked at circumstances. There was a very unusual case as well, where people who use sex as a weapon. So a woman with sexual withholds herself for a period of time extendedly, much to the disagreement of the husband, and he falls short and end up with somebody else. And she gets grounds. Sometimes that is bordering on treachery. Because I know if I do this, you could fall and do that, and I will get what I want. [00:37:06] Speaker A: But at the end of the day, I feel like if in a situation like that, I usually advise persons. If you could get the consent from the other party or if you could show that you have the five years, just rely on those grounds instead of making this divorce messy instead of the adultery. And then sometimes the other, the adulterer could have to be joined to the proceedings. And all these different things is completely unnecessary. If these. If this person is withholding sexual intercourse from you and you going outside and getting it from something, you all don't need to be together at this point. You all don't want to be together. You should probably go and meet somebody who you actually compatible with who would give you what you want when you want it. That is also a ground that you have to consider. So anything about it. Sometimes you only figure these things out when you start living together and you start having children, and then you realize you have a completely different moral set and you have a completely Different. You have a completely different way in which you think that these children should be raised. And then the issues start bubbling. [00:37:57] Speaker B: So here's the next question to you. When someone leaves the matrimonial home and okay, so she leaves. Yeah, she wants out. So she wants to pack up. She isn't working anywhere or whatever doing little thing, what. She leaves the house and she goes. But she's not renting somewhere. Now the divorce is coming up and she's now claiming that he has to pay half. Now he didn't put her out. He didn't tell her he didn't even want out of the marriage. He is forced into this because she's gone. You don't have a choice. Vice versa. There's no choice to be had. It's being put on him. He had to take. What are you gonna do? Stay? No. He could say no and battle, battle, battle. But then it'll reach you five years and she will get it anyway. But then she's asking for him to pay now rent because the children staying with her too. And he has to pay not just to take care of the kids, but to pay her rent and bills. There half of that. How does the court look at that? [00:38:46] Speaker A: Well, the court will consider all these circumstances, as I said, so there are children involved. Obviously the court isn't just going to allow these children to be, you know, suffering on their own. If she needs the assistance, the court will consider that. But that will fall into the realm of whether, firstly the court will grant child maintenance and secondly whether each court will grant spousal maintenance. So it isn't that the court is just going to demand that this man pays this woman money. The court will once again consider all the factors. It's very, very fact specific. So they'll consider for starters, for special. [00:39:19] Speaker B: Cases, I shouldn't say special, but individual cases. [00:39:22] Speaker A: Yeah. They will look firstly at whether this person earns an income, how much this person earns. Even if the person does not earn an income, do they have the capacity to go out and work? Because, you know, sometimes some persons aren't working, but they don't necessarily, they're just home, they're just not actively going to go outside and get a job. But we'll consider that. But there are situations where this woman, because we know we live in a very traditional society, even though we are making advantage, where the man is going out to work and the woman stays home. She's a stay at home wife and she has been a stay at home wife for 25 years. And when she left school, she didn't necessarily get any passes, she don't have any further education, she don't have tertiary education, etc. This person who has been in this marriage for 25 years, who doesn't necessarily have a direct way or immediate way to earn an income, the court will consider that when determining whether to grant spousal maintenance to that person. And that doesn't mean that you can't go and vary it later on. They could even say that I'm granting it for a period of three years, things like that could happen. But again it's really and truly to look at all the factors of the case and the children involved. Are the children properly provided for? As I said, and I often tell persons that the court's main concern when children is involved is the children of the marriage. They aren't even going to give you the decree absolute the final order if they aren't satisfied that proper arrangements are made for the children. And when determining custody and access etc, they usually send the parties for co parenting counseling and things like that. By the order of the court that happens and I've seen it happen very often and child different and they'll come and they'll do a probation reports to see who is the best person that this child should stay with. Etc. All these things happen. So really and surely at the end of the day the court will consider all the circumstances to determine whether this person needs the additional assistance or not. [00:41:12] Speaker B: Beautiful. We have to leave it there folks. Definitely Part two next week. All your questions please save it and Lisa will be back. God spare life and look out for a brand new excuse exciting law show that will be coming to Freedom between Andisa and myself for January. Look out for the. The. The. The artwork. It's coming out. We we in the works on it right now. The topics will be varied but we will definitely converse. Folks, we are heading to 8 o'. Clock. Your news is coming up at the top. Andeesa, have a wonderful day. [00:41:38] Speaker A: You too. [00:41:38] Speaker B: Thank you. [00:41:39] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.