老貓，第二段的第二句是：a claim shall exist against his estate

並沒有特定指明是individual eastate, 是否仍有可能claim it?
這是比較標準的離婚協議，想知道一般的理解是怎樣的？我的理解是如果是individual eastate，當然是be a first charge against the assets。但如果不是individual eastate, "a claim shall exist against his estate"這句話又如何？

所有跟帖： 

• 回複：老貓，第二段的第二句是：a claim shall exist against his es -單身老貓- ♂ (220 bytes) () 07/31/2006 postreply 09:06:14

• 很明白了。非常感謝 -happylittlewoman- ♀ (0 bytes) () 07/31/2006 postreply 09:45:21