Mortgage Raising Capacity request

How does it matter the law is the same basically all over the EU and the world that pre marital assets are not stolen to meet some ridiculously generously assessed "needs". England stands out as the top up jurisdiction. So it is only England that is that unfair to the financially stronger party.

I am not saying that my EU country is paradise or whatever, simply that the divorce law in England is extremely unfair.

I don't live in England. I want nothin to do with England. My country has a higher gdp and better life quality. I just want the ridicolous English divorce law that no one else in the world agrees with to leave me alone.

It sure does look like the UK is on an amazing downward spiral since Brexit btw, this is the mainstream economist's point of view. But it is not a development that I see with any kind of joy.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2023 11:38AM by Randomer4040.

What absolute bullshit.

First, I am reminded of Matthew 6:21, 'For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also'. Your treasure is clearly money and that blinds you to everything else.

And, who gives a damn what the law is 'all over the EU'? Who in their right senses considers the EU as the world's law giver? This country is not in the EU and the Common Law couldn't give a damn about legal rules in civil law jurisdictions.

Then we come to Brexit. You just don't get it, do you? Brexit wasn't about economics. It was about having laws made by a Parliament answerable to British voters and not in having laws imposed by unelected bureaucrats whom no voter can elect out of office. But there again, you are an economist. Like accountants economists tend to know the price of everything but the worth of nothing.

Just in case you missed it, this country rolled out a Covid vaccine which it had itself developed quicker than any EU country, joined the Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), led the response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine while the EU dithered, entered AUKUS with the US and Australia leaving Macron spitting feathers when Australia dumped its order of French submarines and ended VAT on women's sanitary products. None of the foregoing would have been possible within the EU and the last relatively minor example just illustrates what trivialities the EU rejoices in.

Oh, and so far as I know Germany and the Netherlands are in recession. The UK is not. French is torn apart by riots. And the EU's share of world trade has been declining for the last 40 years as bureaucratic regulation has choked it.

As for the 'mainstream economist's point of view', well, they have got the world into a fine mess haven't they? A child could tell you that if you increase the money supply that will lead to inflation. And banks - the Bank of England, the ECB, the Fed - have been printing money like no tomorrow since the financial crash of 2008. All that was presumably on the advice of economists who run these things. Any historian could tell you what happens when you debase the currency by printing money.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2023 03:05PM by David Terry.

BTW, you probably think that the views of the Financial Times, the Independent, the Guardian and the BBC represent the views of Britain. They don't as the Brexit vote (and the subsequent election of Boris Johnson) illustrated very clearly. They speak to an echo chamber. And if you look at their circulation figures you can see just how small that echo chamber is. To understand Britain you need to understand the majority who voted for Brexit and not treat them as fools who were lied to. Whatever the British electorate is they are not fools and they know bullshit when they see it.

I dont have a strong view on the EU. Poland alone is projected to have a larger GDP than Britain by 2030 though. I wouldnt want to live in France, Germany or Poland though . I dont think the riots in France have much to do with the EU.

For the record also the law is also different in the US and there also prenups hold and pre marital assets are generally not touched. I dont only treasure money but I just want to be treated fairly, which I dont feel the English law does in this case if I were to get married. It is simply very annoying that there is no way to ensure such an unfairness (at least as I understand it, you might disagree but I think my view can be seen as a reasonable one) does not indeed happen and so I can not get married. In my EU country there is no need for a prenup even to get to my understanding what is fair. It is annoying that there is no way to get a binding agreement in England that follows the same simple concept.

Btw England without London has a GDP lower than Missisipi. London carries the full weight, London did not want brexit. So the few successes can not be accreditet to the Brexiteer side of the country, that is for sure. The fact that you highlight this VAT thing as one of the main achievements speaks for itself.
And that you mentioned Covid? The best vaccine came from Germany, the EU generally faired way better than England during Covid.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2023 05:26PM by Randomer4040.

>>The fact that you highlight this VAT thing as one of the main achievements speaks for itself.

No. Try reading what I said. I referred to it as minor but illustrating how the EU even arrogates to itself control over such minor matters. And note that no voter anywhere had any say in it. Even today I see that Meloni has imposed a windfall tax on Italian banks and the ECB is complaining about it.

As to Poland overtaking the UK by 2030, please. Anyone who has half a brain cell can tell you that economists can't predict six months hence let alone seven years. How long did the Bank of England say that inflation was 'transitory'? In 2022 the Bank of England was predicting the UK would go into recession and that it would last two years. They were wrong just as George Osborne was wrong when he said Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least 500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU. Curiously enough, remainers don't regard that as a lie although it was about as accurate as prediction by Nostradamus. Give me a break. If you can predict what the relative positions of the UK and Poland will be in 2030 then you will be the only economist who can ever predict anything accurately for a period longer than one day to the next.

So what if some US states treat premarital assets in one way or another? A Texas woman was awarded $1.2 billion in damages last week after she sued her former boyfriend and accused him of sending intimate images of her to her family, friends and co-workers from fake online accounts. Do you suggest anyone imitates that? The test is not what the law is elsewhere. The test is whether a decision can be justified on its merits and I have explained to you ad nauseam why the English courts adopt the approach they do on this issue. They differ, incidentally, from the American case in the $1,2 billion case above by saying that there is a distinction between punishment and compensation. Punishment is for the criminal law. Compensation is for civil law. The $1.2 billion US case blurs the distinction.

England is not without London, though, is it? Any more than France is without Paris. The main town of Mississippi is Jackson which has a population of about 170,000 which is hardly much more than Chelmsford. Like is hardly being compared with like.

I guess to an extend how you have a distaint to some EU burecroat telling you what to do. Similarly, I feel an absolut distain at some judge in England who has no clue about what hard work went into generating assets in a different country simply redistributing them on a spreadsheet as they see fit.

Anyway it is what it is. I think most people dont realize the full extend of it before they enter in my position.
I appreciate you answering question for free here, and also your website is very informative. We probably wont agree, but that is fine.

I like the EU, I can quickly go over a weekend to italy without any hassle, can study anywhere in the EU etc etc. I appreciate the diversity of this great continent, can easily move around within the EU. Degrees are recognized. The whole thing brought a lot of good stuff to my life



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2023 07:01PM by Randomer4040.

The point no remainer or supporter of the EU addresses is the issue of the democratic deficit. Laws are made not by the so called 'Parliament' but by unelected officials - namely the European Commission. And no voter has any say over who sits on the European Commission or has any say over getting rid of one or all of them.

The problem is worse than that because so far as I can see the people who actually sit on the European Commission tend to be failed or second rate politicians. The current president, for instance, Ursula von der Leyen, is a failed German Defence Minister. And in the case of the UK we (or rather Tony Blair) sent Peter Mandelson to be a Commissioner even though he had twice been forced to resign as a minister in the UK. The list goes on.

And as to your vaunted advantages that is a deliberate policy, is it not? Keep the people happy by throwing them scraps but whatever you do don't let them have any power. The policy is seen most obviously in the so called European 'Parliament'. That so called 'Parliament' doesn't have the power to make laws (which is deliberate and why the word deserves to be in inverted commas) so to shut them up and keep them sweet we will stuff their pockets with gold. That is why they are paid obscene sums of money. They have an interest in pocketing the money and not making a fuss.

Your so called 'advantages' are exactly the same. They are sops given to voters to keep them sweet so they don't actually make a fuss about not having any say over what laws the Commission makes or any power to hire and fire them.

It is the equivalent of Esau selling his birthright for a mess of potage. The things you describe are things which are immediately attractive but of little value taken foolishly and carelessly in exchange for something more distant and perhaps less tangible but immensely more valuable - that is the right of a voter to boot out the bums who make laws.

THIS is the point of Brexit, not some nonsense about whether GDP will be a few percentage points greater or less. The supporters of the EU never address this point. Like Esau they take the mess of potage and sell their birthright.

And please note the EU was designed to work like this from the outset. The EU was sold to the British people in 1973 as just a 'Common Market'. That was the original lie. It was never just that. It was designed from the outset to keep ordinary voters well away from any power.

I have deleted the posts of ConfusionReigns. Life is too short for me to spend time refuting what is really abuse rather than argument.

[www.ft.com]

Article in the FT
"London’s reputation as divorce capital could be tested by legal shake-up
The Law Commission’s review is expected to take a hard look at the favorable treatment given to the spouse of the main breadwinner"

seems like there are some sensible people in England that agree with my point of view.


From the article:

Baroness Deech, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords is also demanding change. She pointed out that the law was “lagging 50 years behind nearly every other country in the western world”.

Under her bill, pre-and postnuptial agreements would be binding provided certain conditions are met. Matrimonial property (essentially, all property acquired after the parties were married, save for gifts and inheritances) would be divided equally, and spousal maintenance limited to five years unless the spouse would otherwise suffer serious financial hardship.

I see that I was right about you taking your information from the FT. On a subject like Brexit that is a sure fire way of misreading what most people think.

As it happens I was taught family law by Ruth Deech at Oxford and I can't say that I was much impressed at the time. Be that as it may, notice it says, 'spousal maintenance limited to five years unless the spouse would otherwise suffer serious financial hardship.'

That is much like the present situation in which the courts are always first required to consider a clean break and only award ongoing periodical payments when the circumstances really justify it. The present situation is also that open ended spousal periodical payments should only be awarded if it would not be appropriate to limit them for a fixed term.

Note that under present circumstances the courts prefer a clean break where that can be achieved. And I don't know what the actual figures are but in my experience most cases do result in a clean break. The difference between your position and that of current English law (and of the proposals you have quoted above) is that the courts would retain a jurisdiction to award ongoing periodical payments in appropriate cases whereas you put forward a hard rule with no discretion. That latter viewpoint will never gain favour precisely because of its total inflexibility. Even the proposals you have quoted do not support you on that.

My main point is that only marital assets should be divided (as seems logical and fair)
That is what seems to be proposed and is also where England is the stark outlier currently.

This really seems fairly obvious that it ought to be like this, I could write the arguments why but :
According to the article the rest of the Western world agrees with me, these people in England agree with me. So you are a radical minority.

Enjoy Brexit!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2023 03:29PM by Randomer4040.

No, actually you misread what you have quoted. The proposals do not say - as you do - that premarital assets should be retained come what may. The proposal you have quoted suggest that assets acquired during the marriage should be divided equally. That is something rather different as any lawyer could tell you.

Furthermore please note the other points in what you quote. First, pre- and post-nuptial agreements would be recognised PROVIDED CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET. Second, it is suggested periodical payments should be limited to five years UNLESS THE SPOUSE WOULD SUFFER SERIOUS FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.

In point of fact this doesn't much differ in practice from what happens now but what you persistently fail to recognise is that English law will always have these carve outs which give the courts discretion because that is how English law works. It is what enables it to be flexible and pragmatic which your rigid rules do not. And if you knew legal history you would know how adept English judges are at expanding carve outs like these. Much of the law of trusts is essentially how the judges applied the Statute of Uses (the purpose of which was to abolish trusts).

On the subject of being an 'outlier' we have been through this before. It is meaningless. Once upon a time people believed the world was flat and that the sun orbited the earth. To think otherwise would have made you an 'outlier' (and liable to be burned at the stake). What others do is irrelevant.

By the same token England was an 'outlier' when Henry VIII broke with Rome. It was an outlier when it was a Parliamentary democracy when other European countries were absolute monarchies. It was an outlier when it abolished slavery. It was an outlier to leave the EU. If you knew anything about English history you would realise that England has never modelled itself on the laws or practices of continental Europe. This is no argument at all.

it looks like I have to teach you on your own subject

[publications.parliament.uk]

pls read the bill, it seems pretty clear that the proposal is to only make financial Orders limited to matrimonial property. It expliclity says to not include PRE MARITAL assets. I seriosuly dont understand how this is so hard to grasp. Pls see section 2).


and yes if it means that we can ensure the conditions are met, they are binding with regards to pre-nups. that is a huge improvement if real.

and serious financial hardship of course depends on the definition of that, but if the definition of "serious financial hardship" is reasonable it would also put an end to the golddigging paradise that is England today



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2023 05:47PM by Randomer4040.

I can only go on what you have quoted and what you quoted did not bear out what you were saying.

Having said that, I have now looked at the draft bill. There are some observations to be made.

First, these are no more than proposals and proposals taking the form of a draft bill originating in the House of Lords. It is almost inconceivable that a bill brought forward in the Lords would not be significantly amended by the Commons. The Commons is the elected chamber and as such they represent voices not heard in the Lords. A draft like this has minimal chance of avoiding substantial amendment.

Second, this bill does not say what you say it says. If you read it carefully you will see that provision is made for circumstances which might otherwise result in unfairness.

For instance 2 (2) sets out circumstances under which non matrimonial property might become matrimonial property.
4 (5) provides for circumstances under which the matrimonial property might be shared unequally. That could result in one spouse receiving ALL the matrimonial property in which case keeping what remains of non matrimonial property after 2 (2) has been taken into account might not amount to much.
Section 5 clearly contemplates many circumstances under which periodical payments might be made. And note that 5 (5) contemplates what may be joint lives periodical payments.

The exceptions in the bill seem sensible to me.
What I said is that pre marital assets should be excluded, the bill says exactly that with some managable and reasonable exceptions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2023 06:30PM by Randomer4040.

Frankly, I don't understand your obsession. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you do not have to get married and you are apparently unmarried. So long as you remain unmarried you can do what you want with your assets whether you choose to live with someone else or not.

There were 624,828 live births in England and Wales in 2021. Of those more than 320,000 were outside a marriage or civil partnership, compared to around 304,000 in marriage. That is 51.3 per cent of live births were not to married couples in 2021. What this should make glaringly obvious to you is that in this country many, perhaps a majority of, couples are in relationships but not married. It is a choice they make and it is a choice open to you just like anyone else.

It is only you who has this fixation about losing your assets if you get married. You have a choice. If keeping your assets is what is important to you then you don't get married. It really is that simple. Not being married is not the same as living alone as the birth figures should make clear to you.

@David - we exchanged pre-proposals to the upcoming pFDR. I worked hard to submit what we feel is a wholly realistic and fair proposal that still deviates from equality largely in her favour. She on the other hand has gone to the moon with requests:

- the entire home equity - nearly £500k
- no pension sharing at all - she by far has the largest pension share also > £400k and wants it all
- wants £30k annually for the next 10+ years until she retires
- Thereafter will sign a clean break not to go after any of my future earnings or inheritance

Honestly, I just can't understand how a solicitor would allow their client to submit something like this unless they thought it was possible. We don't even have kids. I can see already from this process, you can do as you like because there doesn't appear to be any repercussions. She was for 1.5 yrs pursuing a medical claim for ongoing maintenance but the case is so weak such was her inability to get sufficient evidence or backing from doctors that she seems to have abandoned this play altogether.

My own solicitor is gobsmacked at the proposal and of course, is of the opinion there is no way this will play out to her wishes.

My major concern is the proposal we put forward is practical and allows me to take just enough out of the home equity to re-house. There really isn't a lot of wiggle room for me to deviate even 10 or 15%. She on the other is pursuing a case where she need not work and I'd be required to continue working high salary, high-pressure jobs.

I'm very concerned that we do the pFDR only not to settle and then blow all the money moving to the final hearing which my solicitor has already stressed is not what we or they want. All the money will go. My solicitor and barrister are of the opinion all sides will work to try and resolve matters on the day, including the pFDR judge.

I must stress that we're dealing with an individual who is hellbent on revenge and quite content to see the whole place 'burn' if that means her too.

Given the context, and with these optics do you feel a pFDR with any integrity is going to buy into what is quite obvious to all parties involved in this - is this typical for someone to go to court with such outrageous demands? I've felt since this started years ago that as the financially stronger party I'm entirely on the back foot. Spent more than £90k on rent in a shared flat since separation and there appears no chance at all I'll get any of this back despite continuing to support payment towards the mortgage.

Your input and take on matters is appreciated as always.

This post is an example of how utterly insane it is to get married in England as the financially stronger party.

The fact that it is even possible to have outrageous requests like this is a disgrace. In my EU country nothing like this could ever happen
.

Randomer4040 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In my
> EU country nothing like this could ever dhappen
> .

>>In my
> EU country nothing like this could ever dhappen<<

I would bet that if we actually knew which EU country this was we could probably point out 101 defects of one sort or another ......

At least you acknowledge that it is a defect now.
Just as your teacher from Oxford does acknowledge too.

No, I do not acknowledge it is a defect. However, I can phrase it in such a way that it is a defect in your unnamed EU country.

''In such EU country it is the law that a wife and children can be left destitute after divorce, no matter how long the marriage has lasted, if the only assets belong to the husband who owned them before the marriage because the law in said EU country is inflexible about how it treats pre-marital assets no matter what the circumstances."

And, for the record, the proposals of Ruth Deech (who has been banging that drum for years) contain provisions for exceptions which the apparently inflexible rule in your EU country does not.