This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
When defendant and his wife were later divorcing in 2019, the annuity came to light, and the wife informed plaintiff that she had seen a check that appeared to have been endorsed by someone else on her behalf. Based on the evidence, the Court affirmed the ruling that plaintiff “possessed a one-half ownership interest in the annuity funds.”.
Note: Foreign divorce judgments are excluded in the Case List.) 1, [14] where the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Courtruled to recognize the Tokyo District Court’s decision to commence civil rehabilitation proceedings and the order appointing the supervisor.
Note: Foreign divorce judgments are excluded in the Case List.) 786), the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Courtruled to recognize a German court’s bankruptcy ruling based on the principle of reciprocity. To date, we have collected 98 cases involving China and 25 foreign States and regions. 99 Trade Co.
By late December 2020, a family dispute arose, after which (on 18 January 2021) Y informed X of her intention to divorce and ask him to leave their home. Ys arguments include among others the following point: (i) The cause of action in casu arose in Japan, where the children were born and raised. 102, Abdur Razzak, op.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content