Another court case debate

[Anonymous]

Yes , they were registered in his Mum's name in 84 and 89 respectively.
You do wonder if he had an inkling of what may be coming at some point.

It’s deprivation of assets any way you choose to observe it.
You’d soon change your stance if the same happened whereby you were the claimant. Preempting what may happen only adds to the deceit. And ignorance is also not a valid defence. The law is there to protect people, an ass though it may appear at times.

 

[Crisstti]

Yes , they were registered in his Mum's name in 84 and 89 respectively.
You do wonder if he had an inkling of what may be coming at some point.

So far back as 84 seems very unlikely.

Were these the houses Joyce out a lien on? Seems hard to see how he would be able to.

 

[Troubled-Joe]

Maybe he just loves his Mum? Anyone considered that?
If I was in a position to buy my Mum a house (or two, or even just a car) I’d not even consider it being in my name, otherwise I’m just their Landlord.

But maybe that’s just me

 

[Crisstti]

Maybe he just loves his Mum? Anyone considered that?
If I was in a position to buy my Mum a house (or two, or even just a car) I’d not even consider it being in my name, otherwise I’m just their Landlord.

But maybe that’s just me

Guess there could be some reasons to leave it on your name, maybe tax reasons? Whatever property Mike put a lien on must have been on his name or had recently been transferred to his mom's.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

My understanding …

The Smiths didn’t have management, or didn’t bring them in on this matter.
Marr & Morrissey didn’t get Andy & Mike to sign an agreement.
Naively, M & M trusted that A & M’s word was their bond.

Years later, Mike Joyce played dumb to any verbal 10 % agreement, this agreement was explained by Marr in his bio, and presumably told in court (?)
Though I don’t know if admitting that there was a verbal agreement/understanding of the financial share between members would have helped M & M.

So without any agreement signed, the law was in Mike & Andy’s favor.


Of course Morrissey being who he is, was not going to make this easy for Mike, or, unfortunately, for himself too.


Though, who ‘won’ is a matter of perspective.

 

[Surface]

He would no doubt point to the properties he occupied in London (again as documented in Autobiography) and then his move to Los Angeles. Sure he also lived in Dublin for a bit.
His mum remained permanently at either Venlo or Beechmount , so I think he has got a valid argument with those.
Who wouldn't like to set their Mum up with houses in the leafy Cheshire countryside?

Do wonder if they have now passed back to him (or him/Jackie? - or her grandchildren?)

No idea what he’s done with it but drove by Beechmount last weekend and there’s a lot of building work going on with the outbuilding at the back of the main house?

 

[Crisstti]

My understanding …

The Smiths didn’t have management, or didn’t bring them in on this matter.
Marr & Morrissey didn’t get Andy & Mike to sign an agreement.
Naively, M & M trusted that A & M’s word was their bond.

Years later, Mike Joyce played dumb to any verbal 10 % agreement, this agreement was explained by Marr in his bio, and presumably told in court (?)
Though I don’t know if admitting that there was a verbal agreement/understanding of the financial share between members would have helped M & M.

So without any agreement signed, the law was in Mike & Andy’s favor.


Of course Morrissey being who he is, was not going to make this easy for Mike, or, unfortunately, for himself too.


Though, who ‘won’ is a matter of perspective.

While we can't know for sure, this is what I think is probably the case as well.

M & M thought a word agreement was enough. Then Mike and Andy got told by lawyers they could get 25% if they sued plus get paid a ton of money, and they probably felt the agreement was unfair to begin with, so they did.

I definitely think Mike didn't have much of a case at all if he admitted that there was a verbal agreement or that he was aware of the financial share he was getting. The importance of a written agreement would have been as evidence.

This is likely the case imo because:
- Andy settled.
- Moz and Marr seemed so furious about it.
- Mike comes off as apologetic imo in interviews, about the whole thing.

 

[D Felton]

No idea what he’s done with it but drove by Beechmount last weekend and there’s a lot of building work going on with the outbuilding at the back of the main house?

Took a diversion past it yesterday - can see the scaffold up etc
No applications made to Trafford Borough Council for any particular work - majority seem to relate to people cutting down trees etc
NB Beech Mount has also got the highest Council tax on that road

 

[A scanty bit of thing]

If you are a gross and intrusive person your aspiration should be to at least try to hide it.

 

[Deleted member 29227]

While we can't know for sure, this is what I think is probably the case as well.

M & M thought a word agreement was enough. Then Mike and Andy got told by lawyers they could get 25% if they sued plus get paid a ton of money, and they probably felt the agreement was unfair to begin with, so they did.

I definitely think Mike didn't have much of a case at all if he admitted that there was a verbal agreement or that he was aware of the financial share he was getting. The importance of a written agreement would have been as evidence.

This is likely the case imo because:
- Andy settled.
- Moz and Marr seemed so furious about it.
- Mike comes off as apologetic imo in interviews, about the whole thing.

Andy settled because he was broke, no other reason.