January 28, 2014

Home Experience For almost all couples the common home is without doubt the most outstanding element that makes up their family heritage, making it also one of the main reasons of dispute and confrontation when deciding the termination of marital cohabitation. With respect to the use or distribution of the same, there is never absolute truths and individual study of the circumstances of the couple could either be taken for the same decision. It is not possible, unlike what happens with the money, split it into two halves, which greatly limits the field of action. How do you solve this issue for each of the modalities of separation? As de facto separation means abandoning "de facto" by a spouse of the same, both being continued to be the owners, not a problem in this regard. Difficulties arise when it comes to "formalize" the situation, with the separation of law. In these cases, both parties may decide by mutual agree how to organize the house, taking into account that could see their situation as something temporary, not ruling out the possibility of reconciliation (after all, this is an intermediate option in front of the divorce). Typically, however, would be for the spouse to stay with the custody of the children maintained the use of this common home until they reach adulthood. However, they could decide alternatives such as: 1 - To sell to a third party easiest option when both spouses have steady jobs and are financially independent, their earnings being similar. 2 - sold to one of the two, who remain living in it. Carried out a separation or divorce litigation, in court, would be as prescribed by the regulations. For example, in the Spanish case, it states that if the couple have children in common, their use and enjoyment shall be the spouse that has been assigned custody and you have not, or if they independent, will be awarded to the most needy of protection. We are referring, in any event, questions about the use and enjoyment as the property on the same unchanged,...
Facilitates P or developed negotiation the hard negotiating is any situation as a struggle for power, in which the party to take the position more extreme and the keep at the time is that it will get better. He wants to win, but with its position it provokes an equally harsh response which gets exhausted in time and that hurt his relationship with the other party. Do you feel identified with any of them? We believe that there is a third form of negotiation that is not neither hard nor soft, but more hard and soft at the same time. It is the negotiation based on the principles in the reconciliation of interests. This system suggests seeking mutual benefits and that when the conflict arises, the result is based on principles, i.e., certain standards or fair criteria, which are independent of the desire and will of any of the parties. This is a hard system with standards and criteria, soft with people. Tips or tricks are not used, they allow us to be righteous while it protects against those who would take advantage of his honesty. The main benefits of this style of negotiation, based on reconciliation of interests are: 1.-reduces the voltage emecional and litigation in personal and commercial relationships. 2 It favors links in a climate of cooperation and mutual respect. 3. Decisions are taken by those involved, what favoreceun greater level of compliance with the agreements. 4. It is more brief and economical for the parties involved. 5 Facilitates or re-established communication between those involved encouraging decision-making. 6. It is a flexible model. The principles are applicable to large and small problems. 7 Attends to the needs of each of those involved, everyone wins. This negotiation model based on the reconciliation of interests, produces very good results in situations, obtaining financing, deal with multiple acreedoresen headquarters legal and outside it, resolve conflicts without going to a judicial procedure, etc.