Found Deceased Australia - Karen Ristevski, 47, Melbourne, Vic, 29 June 2016 - #1

[Oz Jen]

You can't divorce your wife and keep a house which is in her name. Adrianna is saying a house is split in two in a divorce, though only if the title deed is in both names. Not sure what happens to assets in single names. I am assuming they remain with the party whose name is attached to them, subject to overall asset tests, i guess.

Plus, if Borce killed Karen for the house- and got away with it- then i think Sarah would stand to get something, too, as she is the only child of Karen. But i have NO CLUE about the law in this area. Obviously if Borce murdered Karen then he will get nothing except a long sentence.

Regardless of who's name is on the title deed, the house, by common law, is definitely split. It's part of the property settlement.

 

[LexR]

More on A Current Affair soon, although probably just going over old bits of news.

 

[ScottKam]

With all due respect scottKam you have posted that it's definately the husband too. I don't mean to say this offensively but you have adamantly said the same .

Thanks for bringing up this point, Hbayne. I was sucked in, also, just like everyone else is swept up into the Herald Sun hysteria. I was going off what the Herald Sun was saying, which was NOT what the facts were. Per the Herald Sun, i thought a conviction was imminent weeks ago, when Andrew Rule said 'hard questions' need to be asked- obviously of Borce. I was thinking, ****, it's over, Borce is guilty and he's cooked. Then two weeks pass and nothing happens. We all assume it is coming, the arrest. Though, puzzlingly, no arrest comes but RATHER we have an appeal for more information. WTF! This is growing longer, not shorter. So i was SUPER PISSED that the Herald Sun sucked me in and now we're left still running around in circles, with cops riding horses. Why would cops be riding horses if, as the Herald Sun implies, it's the husband? Just arrest him and let's move on. It seems like the Herald Sun is talking the talk, but the cops ARE NOT walking the walk. No offence WHATSOEVER to the cops, as it's not their job to sensationalise and sell papers. But **** the Herald Sun for pumping it all up and blowing hot air. I, too, was guilty of believing too quicly it is borce. no longer. now i am even open to the stranger theory. i'll now believe it is borce when i see borce in cuffs. not otherwise. we need to separate fact from hype.

 

[Hbayne]

Thanks for bringing up this point, Hbayne. I was sucked in, also, just like everyone else is swept up into the Herald Sun hysteria. I was going off what the Herald Sun was saying, which was NOT what the facts were. Per the Herald Sun, i thought a conviction was imminent weeks ago, when Andrew Rule said 'hard questions' need to be asked- obviously of Borce. I was thinking, ****, it's over, Borce is guilty and he's cooked. Then two weeks pass and nothing happens. We all assume it is coming, the arrest. Though, puzzlingly, no arrest comes but RATHER we have an appeal for more information. WTF! This is growing longer, not shorter. So i was SUPER PISSED that the Herald Sun sucked me in and now we're left still running around in circles, with cops riding horses. Why would cops be riding horses if, as the Herald Sun implies, it's the husband? Just arrest him and let's move on. It seems like the Herald Sun is talking the talk, but the cops ARE NOT walking the walk. No offence WHATSOEVER to the cops, as it's not their job to sensationalise and sell papers. But **** the Herald Sun for pumping it all up and blowing hot air. I, too, was guilty of believing too quicly it is borce. no longer. now i am even open to the stranger theory. i'll now believe it is borce when i see borce in cuffs. not otherwise. we need to separate fact from hype.

Thankyou for your response

 

[ScottKam]

I am not going to get into a war of words with you. I didnt take what you wrote as a criticism of the HS but of the police, you wrote this "The police have jack except for good old fashioned hunches." I take offense because I know some police who work their butts off trying to solve cases/help people.

You have also said the police dont have the evidence, which goes back to is it your opinion or do you know something the rest of us dont.

I have nothing more to say about it.

It is a statement of fact that the police don't have enough evidence to arrest and convict anyone, otherwise they wouldn't be out riding horses in an attempt to collect more evidence. Given that we were primed to expect a conviction, oh, i don't know, WEEKS AGO, and given that people thought this was Melbourne's Gerard Baden Clay, i am now perplexed why the police are not arresting Borce, rather, they want MORE information. At this late stage they want more information? I thought an arrest was imminent, yet it looks like an arrest is growing further away, not closer. I put the blame on the Herald Sun, not the police. Saying the police have jack might be an overstatement, but not in the context of the Herald Sun's insinuations that Borce is guilty. If someone is guilty then i expect an arrest, like not next year. Otherwise the Herald Sun shouldn't be offering propaganda.

 

[ozazure]

I have a question for those live in the area or have walked that track?Is it widely used bikes people etc?Doesn't look a nice place too walk at night!

The canning reserve park is popular. I haven't walked that section of the track behind her house, but it is a proper track, my mum and her friend used to do a big walk from Brimbank Park to Canning Reserve and get picked up there and driven home. If you go to Brimbank Park on a morning week day, you will walk past other people, but you are certainly not in sight of someone at all times. People are walking, cycling and working out with PTs. Less people on the track leading out of the park, I don't know what traffic it gets further along but it would be the destination walk for most in the area. I admit I find it a bit nerve wracking and stopped going to BP by myself after there was an attempted assault there a couple of years ago of a young woman.

I agree the paddocks behind their house do not look inviting but I assume that down near the river is more picturesque as it is elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maribyrnong_River_Trail

 

[ScottKam]

Trust me - I'm someone that's been through 2 divorces - it works out well for the person that doesn't put a lot into the relationship - monetary or otherwise.

I trust that. I have a relative that got rolled that way, too. The partner put in his money at the pub, though claimed he paid bills, mortgage, etc. Then he got a LOT MORE than he deserved. The lesson: keep paper trails and evidence of transactions to PROVE what you paid.

 

[sleepinoz]

Thanks for bringing up this point, Hbayne. I was sucked in, also, just like everyone else is swept up into the Herald Sun hysteria. I was going off what the Herald Sun was saying, which was NOT what the facts were. Per the Herald Sun, i thought a conviction was imminent weeks ago, when Andrew Rule said 'hard questions' need to be asked- obviously of Borce. I was thinking, ****, it's over, Borce is guilty and he's cooked. Then two weeks pass and nothing happens. We all assume it is coming, the arrest. Though, puzzlingly, no arrest comes but RATHER we have an appeal for more information. WTF! This is growing longer, not shorter. So i was SUPER PISSED that the Herald Sun sucked me in and now we're left still running around in circles, with cops riding horses. Why would cops be riding horses if, as the Herald Sun implies, it's the husband? Just arrest him and let's move on. It seems like the Herald Sun is talking the talk, but the cops ARE NOT walking the walk. No offence WHATSOEVER to the cops, as it's not their job to sensationalise and sell papers. But **** the Herald Sun for pumping it all up and blowing hot air. I, too, was guilty of believing too quicly it is borce. no longer. now i am even open to the stranger theory. i'll now believe it is borce when i see borce in cuffs. not otherwise. we need to separate fact from hype.

With all due respect and no offence intended - I think you are the only person on this thread swept up in the Herald Sun Hysteria (as you call it).

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Half is his if he pays half. If, however, he is instead putting his half into the pokies; then it is my knowledge that the judge would say he should go to the pokies to ask back for his half. It comes down to proof- showing evidence of who made payments. Not sure if this is significant in this Ristevski case, though it might be as they had a failed business after which the house was put into Karen's name to prevent creditors from taking it off borce, or at least his half. Now Borce is without a legal title to a house. That is trouble, especially if a wife goes missing, and, moreover, if she goes missing shortly after arguments about finances. Tricky.

No, that's not right .. Say you own a house then move in with a guy, you live together either in it, or you live somewhere else and rent it out, you pay all the bills and he spends his money on beer, cars, gambling, drugs, whatever .. If you stay with the guy past two years continuously then half that house of yours is his, as the entirety of both your assets become communal and are split .. Sucks I know .. You might be able to appeal this in court or through negotiation, I'm not sure, but I asked a lawyer what the go was when I met my partner, and that's what I was told.

 

[sleepinoz]

I trust that. I have a relative that got rolled that way, too. The partner put in his money at the pub, though claimed he paid bills, mortgage, etc. Then he got a LOT MORE than he deserved. The lesson: keep paper trails and evidence of transactions to PROVE what you paid.

I did, it doesn't work - half and half is the go with the law.

 

[Puggle]

Any reports of a search on their property at 5/79-83 Keilor Park Dr, Tullamarine.

Warrant Brands which manufacture for the two shops.

Having trouble keeping up......back reading

Sorry if no one has replied....Im not sure.... I'm not sure if they still own that place.....I think the Warrant Brands was associated with their failed business......But...maybe you could send that in to crimestoppers vic...just to doublecheck....they may have maintained the building for store deliveries....

The address is an industrial area....so worthy of a look

 

[Unit45]

We have heard nothing about the phone pings at last location, anyone know how it can be traced while its turned off?

This was a big focus of the MH370 investigation in the early days.

 

[ScottKam]

With all due respect and no offence intended - I think you are the only person on this thread swept up in the Herald Sun Hysteria (as you call it).

Well, i believed the Herald Sun's insinuations that Borce is the one to look at. Now i am not so sure and i will wait until the police offer either new evidence or arrest him.

And with that, it is time for me to take a pause from posting, as i am tired of rehashing the same old statements. Just for the record, the hysteria was the belief the husband is guilty. Now, not being hysterical, i am open to the stranger abduction/murder theory, which i was not open to prior to the Herald Sun's clap trap.

Keep on sleuthing!

 

[Jmbr]

No, that's not right .. Say you own a house then move in with a guy, you live together either in it, or you live somewhere else and rent it out, you pay all the bills and he spends his money on beer, cars, gambling, drugs, whatever .. If you stay with the guy past two years continuously then half that house of yours is his, as the entirety of both your assets become communal and are split .. Sucks I know .. You might be able to appeal this in court or through negotiation, I'm not sure, but I asked a lawyer what the go was when I met my partner, and that's what I was told.

I always thought that it became half and half after 6 months of living together, whether you're married or not. That's when you become 'de-facto'? Could be totally wrong haha!

Just adding, I'm not arguing your point, just saying what I was always told which was probably wrong info!

 

[ScottKam]

No, that's not right .. Say you own a house then move in with a guy, you live together either in it, or you live somewhere else and rent it out, you pay all the bills and he spends his money on beer, cars, gambling, drugs, whatever .. If you stay with the guy past two years continuously then half that house of yours is his, as the entirety of both your assets become communal and are split .. Sucks I know .. You might be able to appeal this in court or through negotiation, I'm not sure, but I asked a lawyer what the go was when I met my partner, and that's what I was told.

Thanks for this, but i don't trust it. If your parents gift you a house, and your husband lives in it with you for 5 years, would he still get half, considering he didn't contribute any proceeds to the purchase of the house? But on that reading, then perhaps the parents should get the house back because you didn't get pay it off either LOL. I am not familiar with how this works, though a 50/50 split does not sound equitable if it was a 70/30 split in house payments. I would expect the law to take payments into account.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I always thought that it became half and half after 6 months of living together, whether you're married or not. That's when you become 'de-facto'? Could be totally wrong haha!

I was definitely told the two year mark because I really thought about it as the date was coming up! Maybe you're considered de facto sooner, but you could leave without splitting assets up to two years or something?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Thanks for this, but i don't trust it. If your parents gift you a house, and your husband lives in it with you for 5 years, would he still get half, considering he didn't contribute any proceeds to the purchase of the house? But on that reading, then perhaps the parents should get the house back because you didn't get pay it off either LOL. I am not familiar with how this works, though a 50/50 split does not sound equitable if it was a 70/30 split in house payments. I would expect the law to take payments into account.

Trust me, yes!! Even if you didn't live in it together, it's half his.

We are veering way off topic now LOL!!!

 

[Jmbr]

I was definitely told the two year mark because I really thought about it as the date was coming up! Maybe you're considered de facto sooner, but you could leave without splitting assets up to two years or something?

You're probably (definitely) right. 6 months isn't long to be able to lay claim to half someone's assets!

 

[Mrs G Norris]

You're probably (definitely) right. 6 months isn't long to be able to lay claim to half someone's assets!

I know it's 6 months for some things, because I had that date in my head too before I got legal advice.

 

[Jmbr]

About to be on A Current Affair.. I'm half an hour behind eastern states here in SA though.. Probably stupid 'jounalism' knowing their track record..