How To Get Hubby To Pay His Way

Dodgy AF then. Wonder where his other wife and kids are.

This thought crossed my mind also.. It's pretty rare but he could be so secretive and non-contributing due to having an entire other family :confused: :eek:

Although big debt / gambling / drug problem is far more likely.
 
Last edited:
Divorce him.

If he can't trust his wife to know his business, then she shouldn't trust him either.

A snake always justifies their actions by assuming everyone else is the same.
 
Probably the only time I'd actually come close to recommending using sex as a weapon.

Apparently even that is not allowed lol.

An ex-copper friend once mentioned how using sex to force your partner to do something is considered coercion and hence illegal :eek::cry:
 
An ex-copper friend once mentioned how using sex to force your partner to do something is considered coercion and hence illegal :eek::cry:

I've heard a police officer acquaintance claim that FX trading is technically illegal because it's "profiteering"... I don't think I'd trust the opinion of police officers on any legal matters that aren't related to things they regularly deal with day to day tbh..
 
I've heard a police officer acquaintance claim that FX trading is technically illegal because it's "profiteering"... I don't think I'd trust the opinion of police officers on any legal matters that aren't related to things they regularly deal with day to day tbh..

Lol, So buying and trading stocks and shares, investing in a pension or managed fund/portfolio, etc, would also be illegal by that rational.
Thing like price fixing cartels etc, they are an illegal form of profiteering, but profiteering isn't illegal in and of itself... the whole point of conducting any type of business is to make profit.
 
Last edited:
Probably the only time I'd actually come close to recommending using sex as a weapon.

I think her threatening to have sex with the secretive fellow is a bit strong

And your sister needs to be careful she doesn't join the "missing woman" ranks if she ruffles too many feathers.
;)
 
Last edited:
R/confidentlyincorrect

Nope. She has already spoken to a solicitor about it. She went in to sort out her will and this of course raised the question of what was hers and what was his. Basically the solicitor said he wouldn't stand any hope of claiming anything on the house if it came to divorce. By not getting his name on things and not paying any bills he has left himself in a very weak situation indeed.
 
That's actually what I recommended doing. He's never going to change unless she forces him to do so. But she is a daft fool. She lets him get away with it. Problem is that she has always allow men to abuse her. Self esteem issues I suppose.

I think the key thing is there. And thus I guess I need to repoint out again; Is she "really" asking you for advice on how to deal with this, and the intention (by her) is "by any means necessary", and "no limit on what she needs to do to make this happen" because she's ready to take action over this? Or is this you (the family) interpreting this as what she wants from you (her family) to do for her and she actually only wanted to vent to someone she can do to instead? And actually has ZERO intention of doing anything?

In some cases, "some" people (like those on how you're describing her), just need to vent, and have absolutely no problems at all really with the poor hand they have been dealt with to play. Because given what you have written there that I have quoted and highlighted, there's a real danger that might be what they're doing, and you might be overstepping through misunderstanding their actual need.

Note, I'm not saying it's not a bad situation to be in, only that as someone (you; the family) who does care for them, and that description of them from you, that you aren't ending up treading on something else in the end (her self esteem) that you might not be able to untread from (and make things a lot worse). Have you talked to her and explained to them that it might be necessary to talk the "ultimate" step to get what she wants, and that means Divorce? Because if she's not down with that, there's nothing more to really say or do at that point.

Your most recent post tells us she's gone to sort her Will out and that she's asked about Divorce and what would be split; that only tells us that she's done this, maybe in hopes in being able to use it as a bargaining chip to get what they want (which may not be actual Divorce). But is she able to take this final step however? Given your description of her?

Again, I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm repeat, just I'm quite aware of how fragile some peoples minds can be, and just want to be sure you're all on the same page before something is done that only sends her into a worse state and spiral that they may not be able to get themselves out of.
 
Nope. She has already spoken to a solicitor about it. She went in to sort out her will and this of course raised the question of what was hers and what was his. Basically the solicitor said he wouldn't stand any hope of claiming anything on the house if it came to divorce. By not getting his name on things and not paying any bills he has left himself in a very weak situation indeed.
Wrong.
 

Not wrong at all:






How does the court decide who to give the house to in a divorce/dissolution?​


In the UK, when a court imposes ‘financial remedies’ to split the assets, it will make the decision based upon:


  • Any children under 18 in the marriage/civil partnership, their needs, and whom they live with
  • The age of each spouse/civil partner
  • The length of the marriage/civil partnership
  • The value of assets, both before, during and after the marriage/civil partnership – this can also include pensions
  • The earning capacity of each spouse/civil partner and their responsibilities during the marriage/civil partnership (such as child-rearing) and in the future
  • What each spouse/civil partner contributed to the marriage/civil partnership in terms of finances and assets (and may contribute in the future towards the family’s welfare)
  • The standard of living during the marriage/civil partnership
  • If either party has a disability
  • The negative conduct of the parties (although this is rare)
  • The overall needs of each party
 
Last edited:
Correct. Married = 50/50. It’s how women get paid out in a “traditional” situation where the husband earns then £ and paid for everything.

Again, No.

Heres another link, or speak to a qualified solicitor if you still dont belive me:


A matrimonial home

If you are married or in a civil partnership there are laws to ensure that the value in the matrimonial home will be divided fairly, even if you are not legally the owner.

The starting point for negotiations tends to be an equal split, but there are a number of factors that can reduce or increase each proportion. For example, if there are children their housing needs will be considered and whoever resides with the children will generally be allowed a larger share of the property value or may be able to postpone dividing the house until the children are older.

The duration of the marriage will be an important factor, as you may receive much less than 50 per cent of a house purchased by your spouse if you divorce after just a year or two. Your contribution to the household bills will be taken into account and any proof that you can provide, such as bank statements, to show your contribution will be helpful. Again, even in cases where there has been a short marriage hearing the needs of any dependent children will be a consideration when a division of equity is considered.
 
In short, If he's not on the mortgage, cannot proove any financial contribution, i.e. paying all the utility bills and shopping etc, he will get much less than a 50/50 share, if anything. The court will look at the overall picture when splitting assets.

If it's obvious hes been freeloading, which it sounds like, he's on a very stickey wicket.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom