Converting an unenforceable support order into an asset transfer
A cross-border divorce where ongoing support payments across jurisdictions would have been difficult to collect, and both parties knew it.
Background
A cross-border divorce where ongoing support payments across jurisdictions would have been difficult to collect, and both parties knew it.
What was done
The support obligation was capitalised: the China-situated property was transferred in place of periodic payments, giving the recipient something that could not be withheld later.
Outcome
The enforcement risk was eliminated by removing the need for ongoing enforcement.
Why this pattern recurs
A smaller capitalised sum that actually completes is worth more than a larger order that is never collected. This is the calculation that should drive the negotiation from the start.
If your situation looks similar
Send the facts in one message: where the marriage was registered, where each party lives now, where any children are, and where the assets are held. That is usually enough to say whether a China route exists, and there is no charge for that first review.
Points to take away
- A smaller capitalised sum that actually completes is worth more than a larger order that is never collected. This is the calculation that should drive the negotiation from the start.
- The enforcement risk was eliminated by removing the need for ongoing enforcement.
Free initial review of jurisdiction, documents and enforceability — before any cost is committed.