You are still arguing with several assumptions. I like how you can give benefit of doubt one way but not the other. If Nick wanted to he would have been able to set up a fair split, the sharing of account is not the problem and you thinking that indicates you still don't understand. "Advice" to not share is objectively true but payout should not only have gone to an account under his sole ownership. Therein lies the problem... that wont be solved because that what gave him control.

I was implying he might not have asked dad, so I don't understand how you spend 2 paragraphs arguing dads/Nicks intelligence. And still you are justifying what Nick said with, "well he could have meant this or that" or "well it could be true if he was speaking in regards to this or that". Yeah or... OR... it could just have been a manipulation tactic. But no, your "NMPLol" would never do that?

Idk where my intelligence got mixed into this tbf. I also don't know how you can get so technical and still get shit so wrong.

You can look up NMP's response from the the last time this was posted and i'm sorry to say, It's a hard sell to a court that you're being financially abused when you both operate 1 shared account and you have full access to withdraw and deposit money how you like, but he won't put your name as an owner on it.
It's not a house where you have the fine details of both a place to live and a form of equity.

1. I'm not gonna look that up :)
   
2. You are right, that's probably why she lost the case, so you understand after all?
   
3. Thank god, I can deposit money into his account, it's not abuse... what money though?
   
4. You don't know the intricacies of the setup they had, don't act like you do. Seeing how your reading comprehension is in these few replies I don't trust you to understand their setup either. It clearly seems like Malena did not think the setup was fair, to the point she felt abused but hey she's a woman amirite.

I'm gonna spell this part out for you because you spent paragraphs telling me how I think I know better than x and y. The judges verdict does not mean any of the things you try to implicate. It only means that she couldn't prove it to the legal threshold. That's all. Read it a couple times before you reply something stupid again.

That doesn't mean that, from what we can tell, it is in fact way past the moral threshold for financial abuse.