Divorce

Then I would think your case would be strengthened by the fact she has supported herself for the last 2 years, so why would she need assets that would then put you in a position of need - weak, but a starting point - speak to a solicitor, the longer you wait the more your assets could be worth, and the financial order, unless previously agreed, is based on the date of divorce, not separation ie if you are paying a mortgage, then the equity in the flat is getting greater (if its a repayment mortgage).

Stranger how much I have learnt over the past 4 weeks! Plan for the worst and hope for the best, and if you don't have a plan, she will, or the court will decide and you will have no input. You will need to fill in a form E, the financial disclosure, and this will be the main document to determine the settlement.
 
I would recommend Shoosmiths solicitors, they seem to be working out for me, but it is early days, they are not cheap, but similar to most others. You could always try the online fixed price divorces but if it starts getting nasty or complicated then you will be at a disadvantage if she has a proper solicitor.
 
At the end of the day, it depends on how good your solicitor is and how good their solicitor is. My uncle was married for 10 years and they raised 2 children that the wife had from a previous marriage. They had an apartment which was down in both of their names and both contributed (and paid off) the mortgage. When they divorced, it went to court and the (now) ex-wife won 100% share of the apartment. This was despite the fact that the 2 children were now aged 19 and 21 (so both older than 18), plus as said already, the children were from a previous marriage anyway. The only assets he was left with was his car and a laptop. So he had to start afresh, but is now happily married again.
 
just say someone was to get their property undervalued and sold the property to a friend and the friend gives him money on the side for selling it to him cheap.....
 
^^ again avoidance and the court will see through it and really screw you over - honesty really is the best bet in these cases.

There are many horror stories out there, more than good ones, but it is getting better, the last chief family lawyer in the dept of justice made it a priority to make things fairer. The cost is the player here, the better the solicitor, the higher the charges, and if it goes to court the barrister costs are astronomical, hence the best way is to avoid and get an agreement through a mediator, then the paperwork drawn up by a solicitor.

There are also a couple of discrimination cases going through that may be relevant, but no conclusions yet, seems the govt wont budge.

We live in hope of a fair result!
 
I’m a family lawyer, mediator and collaborative lawyer and a lot of what TBirdUK says is absolutely right. There are three principles: “sharing”, “needs” and “compensation”. Everyone can ignore “compensation” as it’s only relevant to the extremely wealthy where the assets far exceed needs.

For most people, “sharing” and “needs” are the most relevant. The “sharing” principle says that you each have the right to share equally in what has been built up during the marriage (and the length of the marriage will be extended by any pre-marital cohabitation which runs seamlessly into marriage). In this context it doesn’t matter who was the breadwinner and who was the homemaker. This applies to capital (housing / savings / debts) and pensions.

The sharing principle is just the starting point. If someone (usually the wife who has not worked whilst being at home with kids) needs more than their share under the sharing principle, eg for housing (because they have a lower mortgage raising capacity than their spouse) then there can be an adjustment in their favour to meet needs. This is why you will often hear of there being a 60/40 or 65/35 or 70/30 division in some cases - it usually reflects the fact that an adjustment was required for “needs”.

Income is different - the sharing principle does not apply to this and it solely comes down to needs. Therefore the longer a separated spouse lives without any support, they will have a harder time trying to justify a need for maintenance if they’ve lived independently, and not incurred debt during that time to support themselves.

The factors to consider in your situation are:

- if you are solely paying down the mortgage and increasing the equity you may not be able to ring-fence this or claim it back in the future if the division comes down to needs. Whilst this contribution is, per se, a post-separation non-matrimonial contribution, if the division comes down to needs it could be disregarded.

- would you prefer to keep your head down and live in the property for as long as you can without having to sell it (if that is the likely outcome and you are not able to pay her a lump sum to buy out her capital claims)

- whilst you do nothing, the claims which arise out of the marriage remain live and open - ie she can claim against you at any time (and vice versa). This means that if you have a windfall in the future - E.g. a significant gift or inheritance, she could still claim against it (as above - even though this would be lost-separation and non-matrimonial these type of resources can still be invaded to meet needs). Poor old Mr Page found that out the hard way in 2010: https://news.sky.com/story/lottery-winner-forced-to-pay-ex-wife-2m-10490786

If you opt to go ahead and do something now, you will need advice on what is a fair settlement based on the points I’ve outlined above - how much of what you have is “non-matrimonial” (so does not fall to be shared under the sharing principle but could be invaded for needs) and how much is “matrimonial” (which would be shared equally irrespective of needs). You can then go from there in how you approach it - this could be talking to your ex direct (if that’s possible), or using a mediator, negotiating via a solicitor, collaborative law process (which involves agreeing not to go to court), family law arbitration or as an absolute last resort the court process.

www.resolution.org.uk has a lot of useful information. It’s the national organisation of family law professionals and there are helpful guides on there.
 
It’s a messy business divorce, all you can do is get a decent sol and do the best you can. It is what it is, you start t 50/50 of EVERYTHING you both own and then work forward based on kids and length of relationship, star sign. Why it happened and who is to blame is irrelevant.

looking back I didn’t do badly, managed to whip some money out of the house and buy a flat, she got the house. Long term she sold the house and hosed the money up the wall and I made decent money on the flat and brought a house. She now rents!

And 8 years later I got married again having said I never would, a world away from back then, so much happier:)
 
@ dolly, thanks for the info, glad there are lawyers (whats the difference between a solicitor and a lawyer?) out there who want to help.

My main issues have been what is 'need', who determines it and why is it always assumed the mother automatically is the best person for the kids to stay with - I'm not wanting to fight the system as I cant afford it, and know it would be next to useless but as I have tried to put together a fair proposal, it does seem it will all depend on the whim of the judge eventually looking over the clean break as to what he/she deems fair, and from what I have seen/heard there is a lot of conscious and unconscious bias in the legal system (as also shown by the completely different view of the 2 solicitors I have engaged).

I have also already seen this bias in the mediator, luckily she annoyed my wife in the same manner!!
 
HoneyBadger said:
This thread is depressing.
Quoted for truth.
Click to expand...

Agree with that, after reading all of the posts, particularly the well informed stuff, from those who presumably have been through it, I dropped to my knees, and thanked the good Lord that I somehow dodged all those bullets when I left my wife around 1970-1971.
I’d been married for ten years, and we had two young sons, when I walked into a bar, and was struck by a weapons grade coup de foudre, as I laid eyes on a gorgeous Polish girl.
My wife subsequently divorced me, and asked for nothing but maintenance for her and our sons.
Bear in mind that the divorce was around 1973, she was awarded £4.50 per child, per week, and £9.00 per week for herself.
I met her, and her father, in a pub opposite the High Court in Strand, after the case, and told her that I’d set up a standing order for the maintenance right away, plus, if she kept quiet about how I earned my money, I’d pay her the same amount in cash, every week.
She hated my guts, but she knew that I wouldn’t lie about the money, as I loved my kids, and would die before I’d let them go short.
I kept the arrangement up, right up until she remarried some 5 or 6 years later, and kept paying double for the boys, until they reached 18.
Didn’t make me a hero, I should have been wise enough to have stayed with her, and worn blinders when I went out with the guys for a drink that night.
 
TBirdUK said:
@ dolly, thanks for the info, glad there are lawyers (whats the difference between a solicitor and a lawyer?) out there who want to help.

My main issues have been what is 'need', who determines it and why is it always assumed the mother automatically is the best person for the kids to stay with - I'm not wanting to fight the system as I cant afford it, and know it would be next to useless but as I have tried to put together a fair proposal, it does seem it will all depend on the whim of the judge eventually looking over the clean break as to what he/she deems fair, and from what I have seen/heard there is a lot of conscious and unconscious bias in the legal system (as also shown by the completely different view of the 2 solicitors I have engaged).

I have also already seen this bias in the mediator, luckily she annoyed my wife in the same manner!!
Click to expand...

The argument about “need” is always where people differ. “Need” will be judged by reference to standard of living during the marriage - so someone living a long married life in a £1M property will be judged to “need” something of a similar standard. If there are kids then it’s always X many kids = at least X+1 number of bedrooms within a certain radius of school (which often means it’s cheaper to keep the former family home going rather than have two lots of purchase costs).

There is always a bracket for likely outcome - which depends on the view a Judge may take on what is non-matrimonial and what is the level of need.

For example, many times I’ve seen one person say the “need” is a 3 bed property at a cost of, say £300k. Whereas it may be agreed it should be a 3 bed, there’s always a range on the market so the other will say it’s £250k. In reality because the system is discretionary, the answer is likely anywhere between them. Sometimes people are stupid and say the need is far in excess and a Judge will simply say that it’s aspirational and will form their own view based on the property market - I’ve seen Judges actually go on Rightmove while in Court and look!
 
Pawnless Endgame said:
At the end of the day, it depends on how good your solicitor is and how good their solicitor is. My uncle was married for 10 years and they raised 2 children that the wife had from a previous marriage. They had an apartment which was down in both of their names and both contributed (and paid off) the mortgage. When they divorced, it went to court and the (now) ex-wife won 100% share of the apartment. This was despite the fact that the 2 children were now aged 19 and 21 (so both older than 18), plus as said already, the children were from a previous marriage anyway. The only assets he was left with was his car and a laptop. So he had to start afresh, but is now happily married again.
Click to expand...
Did he learn nothing?! :p
 
I feel for everyone in here, trust me it's no different even if your not married!
Still costs the best part of an executive car to pay off a gf that hasn't contributed or named on the property it smarts a lot especially when they initiate the breakup.
 
its strange how the system is designed to go down the adversarial route - my wife and I are agreeing at the moment, because we want to maintain a civil relationship as we will always be in contact due to the kids, but everyone is advising her to go for more, the most she can. Luckily she is a lot younger than me, and as such, her earning potential is greater in the longer term, and I have limited means of getting another mortgage due to time left in employment etc and although I earn quite a bit, I have less time to re-build.

Still, it seems from her solicitor advice that it doesn't matter that I 'need' to have a house, so my kids have somewhere to stay with me, that's what gets me. Lets just hope I get a judge that is fair, the mediator is already appearing bias towards her, and that is annoying!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom