Mortgage Raising Capacity request

As to Randomer4040 I am not going to waste further breath.

ConfusionReigns Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to agree with Randomer and not just because
> of the divorce law. England has become a terrible
> place to live, especially since Brexit but as
> someone who was too young to "buy at the right
> time" I've spent most of my adult life paying
> taxes to bail out other people and their house
> prices! When my children are old enough, I'm
> taking a one way ticket out of here.
>
> Specifically on the divorce law, of course it is
> nonsense. It's unpredictability does not serve
> ordinary people who cannot afford solicitors. The
> general guidance now is avoid court because 50% of
> something is better than 60% of nothing. Also, it
> is so heavily focused on need that it destroys
> natural justice. When a hoodlum crashes his boy
> racer car into yours, a judge doesn't award him
> damages because he "needs" another one. So why
> when the weaker financial party refuses to work
> all their life and then has an affair is it
> possible for them to "need" more money than they
> could ever have earned themselves?
>
> However, we have to understand family law is a
> closed world. Those in it believe in it, either
> because they designed it or because they profit
> from it. To the rest of us it is absurd, whether
> the earner who is fleeced or the scrounger who
> cannot believe their luck. There will never be any
> reform because the solicitors within this world
> depend on the uncertainty and the ridiculous
> levels of discretion for their livelihood. Perish
> the thought that Family Law could go the way of
> Land Law which demanded that title to land was
> registered with HMLR for a registrable event since
> 1990 and reduced the complexity (and fees) of
> conveyancers as unregistered land became more and
> more rare. The solicitors will never allow
> something like that to happen again.

absolutely true. The uncertainty benefits the lawyers and drives up the fees. The fees in my EU country are way lower because rules are clear and there is less to argue about. Less ridicolous ideas like going after an inheritance, because of some "needs" arguments.
Prenups are not legally binding in England, so quite useless. But they do still drive up lawyer fees, lawyer tells you do to it, "better than nothing". You pay around 10k for that piece of paper. Then when divorce comes some lawyer who has incentive to maxmimze fees tells the financially weaker to contest the prenup, again increasing lawyer fees. At the end of the day you will always find some argument why the pre-nup is not fair now that it comes to divorce.
Insane disgraceful system.

David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>When a hoodlum crashes his boy racer car into
> yours, a judge doesn't award him damages because
> he "needs" another one. So why when the weaker
> financial party refuses to work all their life and
> then has an affair is it possible for them to
> "need" more money than they could ever have earned
> themselves? <<
>
> The difference between the two cases is that in
> the latter PARLIAMENT has decided that needs are
> important and a factor that courts MUST take into
> account. The judges are applying an ACT OF
> PARLIAMENT. If you don't like it then write to
> your MP.
>
> And only a fool would say that all Acts of
> Parliament are perfect and that everything is for
> the best in all possible worlds. Obviously laws
> can be legitimately criticised. However, there are
> things you can blame judges for and there are
> things you can blame Parliament for but the two
> are different.

Except most of us could interpret the 1973 act quite differently, so I'm not going to let judges off the hook that easily. In a 1988 case which I can't find the name of, a judge decided that a man needed to pay spousal maintenance for longer because his ex had got pregnant by another man who disappeared and decided she couldn't work because she wanted her little bastard to come home from school for lunch. And the judge agreed with her! Another judge could easily use the same law to tell her to jog on, which is more likely to happen nowadays.

It would be quite possible to apply a literal interpretation to the act and tell people who had affairs that they're getting nothing because of their conduct; judges could properly consider the needs of both parties and never insert a best endeavours clause into a release from mortgage agreement again. Judges however continue with their idiotic interpretation of the act which is why reform is going to largely come down to taking their discretion away.

>>It would be quite possible to apply a literal interpretation to the act and tell people who had affairs that they're getting nothing because of their conduct;

No, actually, that is YOUR interpretation of what the words should mean. Since the Act was passed there have been countless court cases considering how this subsection of section 25 should be interpreted (and balanced against the other subsections) and REASONS have been given in each of those judgements. And although it is perfectly true that different judges can come to different decisions based on the same facts (even though generally within the same sort of ball park) all reasoned judgements came to the conclusion that your interpretation is wrong. Since there are good reasons for that, those reasons have been set out in many judgements and you are, apparently, a student it might be a sensible use of your time to actually read judgements and the reasons given for them. Indeed, it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to envisage many circumstances under which the interpretation you seek to put upon the subsection would be plain wrong.

There is another thing which every divorce lawyer knows after seeing goodness knows how many cases. It is that adultery is more often than not a symptom of a broken marriage rather than its cause. That one spouse has committed adultery does not necessarily mean the other is blameless. In most cases there is blame on both sides. Indeed, spouses who are most vehement about adultery being the sole cause of the marriage breakdown are usually so unreasonable that it was hardly surprising the other spouse looked elsewhere.

Do please note also that because of factors such as the above the courts steer well clear of apportioning blame. All they are concerned with is whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down on not. If it has then in 99% of cases there is nothing to be gained by going down the rabbit hole of 'blame'.

here I agree:
It is totally useless to try to assign blame. Some EU countries actually do that, i.e. you get maintance only if the other is to be blamed. I think that is ridicolous. Usually both parties will find reasons to blame the other person no matter what actually happened.


The thing I find hard to understand is how you explain in a case like mine 1.5M pre marital wealth vs pre marital wealth close to zero, how it is fair to give perhaps 800K of my hard earned money before the marriage to my lower earner partner who cheated on me. The system just disincitives me to marry because it is unfair to the financially stronger party (hence no marriage for me). The system makes it a very uneven risk reward situation when there is a disparity in wealth.

actually on second thought even here the EU country might have a point. It will always be both parties fault, but in case there is a clear proven misconduct such as physcial abuse and adultery, it makes sense that this person should be more financially liable. The incentives are way better aligned in the EU.

David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>It would be quite possible to apply a literal
> interpretation to the act and tell people who had
> affairs that they're getting nothing because of
> their conduct;
>
> No, actually, that is YOUR interpretation of what
> the words should mean. Since the Act was passed
> there have been countless court cases considering
> how this subsection of section 25 should be
> interpreted (and balanced against the other
> subsections) and REASONS have been given in each
> of those judgements. And although it is perfectly
> true that different judges can come to different
> decisions based on the same facts (even though
> generally within the same sort of ball park) all
> reasoned judgements came to the conclusion that
> your interpretation is wrong. Since there are good
> reasons for that, those reasons have been set out
> in many judgements and you are, apparently, a
> student it might be a sensible use of your time to
> actually read judgements and the reasons given for
> them. Indeed, it doesn't take a great deal of
> imagination to envisage many circumstances under
> which the interpretation you seek to put upon the
> subsection would be plain wrong.
>
> There is another thing which every divorce lawyer
> knows after seeing goodness knows how many cases.
> It is that adultery is more often than not a
> symptom of a broken marriage rather than its
> cause. That one spouse has committed adultery does
> not necessarily mean the other is blameless. In
> most cases there is blame on both sides. Indeed,
> spouses who are most vehement about adultery being
> the sole cause of the marriage breakdown are
> usually so unreasonable that it was hardly
> surprising the other spouse looked elsewhere.
>
> Do please note also that because of factors such
> as the above the courts steer well clear of
> apportioning blame. All they are concerned with is
> whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down
> on not. If it has then in 99% of cases there is
> nothing to be gained by going down the rabbit hole
> of 'blame'.

You just proved my point and destroyed your previous argument. Parliament wrote the act, but it was our crappy common law system and rogue judges who interpreted it to do what they wanted to all along. The affair was just an example, I could come up with lots more different interpretations of the statute that are perfectly legitimate interpretations that just never became precedent because the courts chose to go a different way, sometimes with alarmingly poor results like in Critchell vs Critchell. There are a number of terrible pitfalls in divorce, all judge made.

My interpretation of the act is just as valid a reading of the act as theirs. So are many other interpretations a reasonable person could come up with. It's just not the version bastardised by people in funny wigs who venerate their traditions and their means of an income more than fairness or real justice.

I just read up on this case and I seriously can not believe the insanity.
There is nothing more insane to a financial economist than the Enlgish divorce law.

>>My interpretation of the act is just as valid a reading of the act as theirs.

No, your interpretation is not as valid as theirs. The difference is that they give detailed reasons. And there are many cases containing full reasoning on the point. Your 'interpretation' is nothing more than what you would like to happen.

If you are a law student as you say then you should pay attention to judgements and their ratio because that is what Common Law is based upon. Your 'interpretation' with no reasoning would obtain null points in an exam (or in argument before a court come to that).

Actually, your view that an adulterer should forfeit all rights raises an interesting point about the numbers game that randomer4040 is so keen upon as an argument. In sharia law an adulterer would be stoned to death. Needless to say such death does mean forfeiting all rights upon divorce. Now there are certain safeguards such as the number of witnesses required and the secular laws of many countries do limit sharia law. Nevertheless the principle is clear. Adultery is a big no-no in islam. There are approximately 1.5 billion muslims worldwide. I see randomer4040 does actually agree with me on the issue of conduct but if numbers were an issue there would be debate about who was the 'outlier'. That is precisely why English Common Law relies upon reasoning rather than numbers. That is not to say that the reasoning is always right but it is always given and it is transparent and open to criticism or approval in later cases.

David is a lawyer working in the English divorce system. That is as biased as it gets. I think it is pretty clear to any reasonable person that the law in England is not fair in a situation like mine, hence why you might not see that many marriages in that situation.

To a PhD mathematican and economist who is trained in personal finance the english system is grossly unfair (particulary in a situation with a big wealth disparity) and leads to extreme disincentives. I highlight that the law in the rest of the world agrees with me, although David doesnt.

In general with most things in life usually you find that the middle ground is the fairest, England is clearly the "top up jurisdiction" and the most generous to the financially weaker party in the world. Even here in the EU where I am you here men left and right complain about the "unfair law" to them about marraige, I find it laughable because I know what it is like in England. And also in England it seems (check out various divorce forums on the internet, it is unbelievable), that some still dont think the handout they get is enough.

I assume that there are some islamic countries that are very unfair to the weaker party/woman. On balance probably something like in the EU/US is fair. Obviously the argument about the islamic world is quite ridicolous, EU/US are quite simliar to England otherwise and very comparable. Even Scotland has quite a different law to England (close to EU) and so England really stands as an outlier in the developed world.
The EU in general would be more "socialist" than England while the US more "capitalistic", England is somewhere in the middle, but not with the divorce law where it is ridicolous a outlier.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2023 11:52AM by Randomer4040.

David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>My interpretation of the act is just as valid a
> reading of the act as theirs.
>
> No, your interpretation is not as valid as theirs.
> The difference is that they give detailed reasons.
> And there are many cases containing full reasoning
> on the point. Your 'interpretation' is nothing
> more than what you would like to happen.
>
> If you are a law student as you say then you
> should pay attention to judgements and their ratio
> because that is what Common Law is based upon.
> Your 'interpretation' with no reasoning would
> obtain null points in an exam (or in argument
> before a court come to that).
>
> Actually, your view that an adulterer should
> forfeit all rights raises an interesting point
> about the numbers game that randomer4040 is so
> keen upon as an argument. In sharia law an
> adulterer would be stoned to death. Needless to
> say such death does mean forfeiting all rights
> upon divorce. Now there are certain safeguards
> such as the number of witnesses required and the
> secular laws of many countries do limit sharia
> law. Nevertheless the principle is clear. Adultery
> is a big no-no in islam. There are approximately
> 1.5 billion muslims worldwide. I see randomer4040
> does actually agree with me on the issue of
> conduct but if numbers were an issue there would
> be debate about who was the 'outlier'. That is
> precisely why English Common Law relies upon
> reasoning rather than numbers. That is not to say
> that the reasoning is always right but it is
> always given and it is transparent and open to
> criticism or approval in later cases.

If you want 2 sides of A4 about why my interpretation of the act was right I could easily provide it (bearing in mind this is on the assumption of the statute being new and ready to be bastardised and twisted by a judge). I might come up with something weird, but no weirder than the status quo.

I appreciate what you say about the study of the law but becoming a student of it has eroded most of my respect for the common law system. I think it's a disaster (with special mention to Denning who regularly mucked things about) and would take the Napoleonic Code with pride. The wrong side won at Waterloo!

Also, I have no strong views on adultery, I just used it as an example of how interpretation could be different. Given when the act was written, another decade earlier and my interpretation could have become precedent!

>>I appreciate what you say about the study of the law but becoming a student of it has eroded most of my respect for the common law system. I think it's a disaster (with special mention to Denning who regularly mucked things about) and would take the Napoleonic Code with pride. The wrong side won at Waterloo!<<<

No further comment is needed on that I think .....

Well, I wouldn't expect a Brit to know what a leader looked like. They've never had a decent one.

I think these comments speak for themselves. I would be curious to know what nationalit(ies) ConfusionReigns holds and whether his preferred countr(ies) stand comparison with the UK. Like randomer4040 there is a marked reluctance to identify a country of origin with which the UK can be compared.

Just to be clear Napoleon was a tyrant. If you doubt that ask yourself why children are not named after Napoleon. And on the subject of leader I believe Napoleon was defeated by Wellington (who went on to become Prime Minister) or am I mistaken about that?

Even Poland will overtake the little britain by GDP by 2030. Continental Europe wins in the end.

but again I do not have an issue with England, only its divorce law.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2023 12:44PM by Randomer4040.

David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think these comments speak for themselves. I
> would be curious to know what nationalit(ies)
> ConfusionReigns holds and whether his preferred
> countr(ies) stand comparison with the UK. Like
> randomer4040 there is a marked reluctance to
> identify a country of origin with which the UK can
> be compared.
>
> Just to be clear Napoleon was a tyrant. If you
> doubt that ask yourself why children are not named
> after Napoleon. And on the subject of leader I
> believe Napoleon was defeated by Wellington (who
> went on to become Prime Minister) or am I mistaken
> about that?

I have the misfortune of being British and unable to get an EU passport. I ceased to have any loyalty to the UK the day it voted for Brexit.

On the subject of Waterloo, Napoleon was fighting the real tyrants, the monarchies of Europe. Whilst no democrat himself, he was still much better than the prevailing norm of the age. Wellington helped the tyrants of Europe get their thrones back so that people over Europe could carry on being oppressed and culminating in two world wars until they were removed across much of the continent. Immediately after Waterloo, the British tyrants (George III and his regent George IV, along with various Tory Prime Ministers) focused their attention on oppressing the poor, taking away their habeas corpus, denying them the right of assembly, hacking them to pieces at Peterloo and artificially inflating the price of corn to help out landowners whilst ordinary people starved.

Napoleon was by no means perfect, but he was an awful lot better than what we had in the UK.

Er, I don't recall the French being able to elect Napoleon or to be able to get rid of him. Also, so far as I recall he made his brother King of Spain and King of Naples. I don't recall the people of Spain or Naples having any say over that quite apart from the obvious inference that Napoleon had nothing against kings as such. And, of course, countless French people (and others) died in wars waged by Napoleon but I suppose that counts for nothing.

And it really is a bit absurd to describe George III and George IV as tyrants. The monarchy had become constitutional in England since at least as early as the accession of George I in 1714 so George III and George IV were not personally responsible for oppressing anyone (except, perhaps, for their own families). England was a Parliamentary democracy at the time of Peterloo. Admittedly the electorate was narrow until it started to be enlarged in the 1830's but where were the comparable systems of government in Europe? There were none. There were no electorates elsewhere.

Ah, you are a Remoaner. Quelle surprise. Laws in the European Union are not made by the European 'Parliament'. Only the European Commission can propose laws and in case you haven't noticed the European Commission is not elected or accountable to any electorate. Quite why anyone thinks it is a good idea to be be subject to laws made by unelected officials goodness only knows. And how long is it since the Court of Auditors approved the EU's accounts? Pigs and troughs come to mind.

David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Er, I don't recall the French being able to elect
> Napoleon or to be able to get rid of him. Also, so
> far as I recall he made his brother King of Spain
> and King of Naples. I don't recall the people of
> Spain or Naples having any say over that quite
> apart from the obvious inference that Napoleon had
> nothing against kings as such. And, of course,
> countless French people (and others) died in wars
> waged by Napoleon but I suppose that counts for
> nothing.
>
> And it really is a bit absurd to describe George
> III and George IV as tyrants. The monarchy had
> become constitutional in England since at least as
> early as the accession of George I in 1714 so
> George III and George IV were not personally
> responsible for oppressing anyone (except,
> perhaps, for their own families). England was a
> Parliamentary democracy at the time of Peterloo.
> Admittedly the electorate was narrow until it
> started to be enlarged in the 1830's but where
> were the comparable systems of government in
> Europe? There were none. There were no electorates
> elsewhere.
>
> Ah, you are a Remoaner. Quelle surprise. Laws in
> the European Union are not made by the European
> 'Parliament'. Only the European Commission can
> propose laws and in case you haven't noticed the
> European Commission is not elected or accountable
> to any electorate. Quite why anyone thinks it is a
> good idea to be be subject to laws made by
> unelected officials goodness only knows. And how
> long is it since the Court of Auditors approved
> the EU's accounts? Pigs and troughs come to mind.

The trouble is you are comparing Napoleon to modern, western democracies. When Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo, hardly anyone in the UK was allowed to vote and several constituencies were rotten boroughs that could be bought. Also, the Lords could overall all or any legislation from the Commons. Napoleon - had he won - threatened to remove all of that. The aristocracy were so scared of his influence that they wouldn't let him onshore at Torbay. And what would he have done if he won?

"I would have hastened over my flotilla with two hundred thousand men, landed as near Chatham as possible and proceeded direct to London, where I calculated to arrive in four days from the time of my landing. I would have proclaimed a republic and the abolition of the nobility and the House of Peers, the distribution of the property of such of the latter as opposed me amongst my partisans, liberty, equality and the sovereignty of the people."

Little wonder Byron lamented Wellington's victory.

Also, your assessment of the European Commission is frankly idiotic. Each Commissioner is appointed by a democratically elected government. The EU works that way because it must strike a balance between EU and state power, just like the USA. Funnily enough, the US Executive is appointed by the President rather than elected; the only thing lacking in Europe is direct election of the President of the Commission. But Brexiters are exactly the people who would have started squealing about sovereignty had we done so!

Terry,

I have a pFDR next month and was looking forward to the possibility of closure in what has been nothing short of a nightmare of a process.

Upon the most recent financial disclosure exchange this week, it's become clear that my wife has taken out x 2 £20k loans in the last 6 months. I presume to pay her increasing solicitors bills or other.

My own solicitors I anticipate will advise but I'm unclear on the likely viewpoint of the judge/courts in relation to our upcoming pFDR.

I'd hoped to settle all matters and draw a line in the sand but things seem to be getting worse. She controls the house, I am ordered to pay towards it still, am also paying my own accommodation with no support, and ultimately helpless albeit for a job that pays well and is keeping me from drowning.

Questions that arise - how can she do this, is this not illegal, will it weigh against me in the settlement, will they want me to pay this or half of her debt, should I not just take out loans myself and pay my solicitors bills through this - is there an advantage or benefit my own solicitors have not explained... Has her solicitors advised her it was better to build a mountain of debt and keep her savings in tact rather than draw down on that to pay their bills...

I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm saying and thinking. If you have any feedback on how this scenario is likely to play out it is appreciated.

Thanks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2023 04:00PM by catexon.

Debt certainly can be taken into account. Say, for instance, (assuming there are the funds) X requires £200K to fund a property purchase and also has £20K of debt. It would certainly not be unknown for spouse Y to have pay a lump sum of £220K rather than £200K.

Having said that, everything depends upon the figures and individual circumstances. There may simply not be enough to pay £220K and also meet Y's housing needs.

The person whose name a debt is in will end up keeping that debt because the courts do not have the power to transfer debts. Whether they think it fair or practical to order the other spouse to pay a lump sum sufficient to pay those debts very much depends on the detail.

Only you can decide whether you wish to run up debt but in general debt is something to be avoided. If a country has a national debt which is 50% of GDP then if some emergency arises it may well be able to borrow to 60% of GDP. However, when national debt is 100% or 120% of GDP there is very little room for manoeuvre left. It is much the same with people. Unless you want to drown in it keeping debt to prudent levels is sensible for most people.

Apologies meant to call you David.

Reading between the lines it sounds like nothing I can do.

She can rack up any debt she likes, I'm the financially stronger partner and the burden will be passed on to me in some manner.

You can't prevent your wife borrowing money, no. Whether you end up paying for it remains to be seen. Despite what some people think the courts do try to balance the needs of both parties.

This is all so insane, I am speechless. You must be mentally ill to get married as a much stronger financial party in England.

lol. Next time I'll be sure to predict the future. To be precise 20+ years into the future because when I got married I had no money, and nor did she.

absolutely if you start with a similar amount it is a much more reasonable decision, but if from the start there is a big wealth disparity there is only risk for the wealthier party in an unbelievable unbalanced way

my experience of the uk divorce system so far is anything but reasonable.

I've had to wait now 13 months to attend two court dates because the courts are too clogged. The first court date took 9 months of waiting and then was cancelled. Now been waiting another 4 months for an pFDR.

And all the while am having to pay solicitors bills, pay for a house I don't live in, plus my own rent, plus a wife who is proactively building up a large debt pool knowing that me as the financially stronger partner will have to pay for it. The system seems clearly to allow for all of it.

I couldn't in good faith, unfortunately, advise anyone to ever get married, it is such a shame. The biggest financial risk you will ever take in your life and if you are the guy, you are for the most part doomed.

there are law firms in my EU country warning against marrying someone from England on their webpage, calling it "financial armaggedon".

ha ha. If they want an endorsement or testimonial(s) they'll find lots on this forum lol

“”there are law firms in my EU country…..”

@Randomer4040 - Where is it you live?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2023 06:18AM by Andyk.

I think we have established he lives here. What he is much more cagey about is which country 'my EU country' actually is.