<?xml version="1.0"?><!-- generator="bbPress" -->

<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
<title>DavidCadogan.ca Forums Topic: during the two marital relationship continues to exist</title>
<link>http://davidcadogan.ca/bbpress/</link>
<description>DavidCadogan.ca Forums Topic: during the two marital relationship continues to exist</description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:17:26 +0000</pubDate>

<item>
<title>og3kS5vA0S on "during the two marital relationship continues to exist"</title>
<link>http://davidcadogan.ca/bbpress/topic.php?id=381936&#038;page#post-409770</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>og3kS5vA0S</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">409770@http://davidcadogan.ca/bbpress/</guid>
<description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(Reporter Sun Siya) husband without telling his wife, spent more than 100 million dollars to the lover repairing a property,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.countryhousesangiorgio.it/&quot;&gt;hogan outlet&lt;/a&gt;, the husband and wife after a small three children to court. Yesterday, reporters learned, a city in the Court of Final Appeal found the behavior of her husband's gift is invalid.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;62-year-old Lee and 68-year-old Ma married in 1976. Lee alleged that, in 2002, during the two marital relationship continues to exist,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.casertaaccessibile.it&quot;&gt;woolrich sito ufficiale&lt;/a&gt;, Ma remove $ 168,088 in Bank of China branch in Beijing Sogo Plaza,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kendomantova.it&quot;&gt;hogan outlet&lt;/a&gt;, for the purchase of Xicheng District,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.acoh-re.jp/post_mail/postmail.cgi&quot;&gt;http://www.acoh-re.jp/post_mail/postmail.cgi&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.countryhousesangiorgio.it/&quot;&gt;hogan outlet sito ufficiale&lt;/a&gt;, East Lane censer camp a property,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bettybet.it&quot;&gt;hogan outlet&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi4.synapse.ne.jp/~oni/joyful/regist.cgi&quot;&gt;http://cgi4.synapse.ne.jp/~oni/joyful/regist.cgi&lt;/a&gt;, and the real estate gift and its improper relationship between men and women 32-year-old Ms. Han name. Lee sued to court,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ito.dz/spip.php?article74&quot;&gt;http://www.ito.dz/spip.php?article74&lt;/a&gt;, asked Ms. Han Ma for the return of money paid for the purchase of 1,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ito.dz/spip.php?article74&quot;&gt;http://www.ito.dz/spip.php?article74&lt;/a&gt;,391,281 yuan, and assume the case costs.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;It is understood that the hearing, the husband agrees Ma Lee's claims. And Ms. Han argued that the purchase money is paid for her own self, nothing to do with Ma. There is no relationship between her and Mr. Ma gift. Even if there is a gift, subject annulment should also be contracting parties,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iesuliafidentia.es/spip.php?article9&quot;&gt;http://www.iesuliafidentia.es/spip.php?article9&lt;/a&gt;, Ms. Lee's body disqualification. Lee sued request the return of real estate, after the withdrawal is now also demand the return of the housing fund, inconsistent.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Court of First Instance ruled that Ma $ 168,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.middleeast.org/read.cgi&quot;&gt;http://www.middleeast.org/read.cgi&lt;/a&gt;,088 in the account shall be jointly owned property. Without the consent of his wife, Ms. Han said funds used to pay a mortgage, violated the legitimate rights and interests of Ms. Lee. Ms. Han said that although the purchase of its own money to pay,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.carbuying.us&quot;&gt;http://www.carbuying.us&lt;/a&gt;, but the fact that contrary to the representations and identified. Ms. Han court to pay Lee $ 168,&lt;a href=&quot;http://jibun.atmarkit.co.jp/ljibun01/rensai/eh23/eh01.html&quot;&gt;http://jibun.atmarkit.co.jp/ljibun01/rensai/eh23/eh01.html&lt;/a&gt;,088 RMB equivalent. Ms. Han appeal after sentencing, the City Court of Final Appeal rejected the appeal upheld the conviction.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt; Welcome to comment to share: microblogging Recommended&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
