Home Contents

In June an order was raised by the court as follows....

Quote

The Husband shall by 4.7.23 file and serve a short statement attaching an inventory of any items which he still has in his possession and identifying any issue he raises in relation to the contents of the FMH regarding items over £200 in value

4. The wife shall by 11.7.23 file and serve a short statement in response and identifying any issue she raises in relation to the contents of the FMH regarding items over £200 in value

I satisfied tis requirement. She delivered her response 1 month late.

Within my statement, I identified several items, which I consider personal possessions that where not present after my wife vacated the property. I believe she has taken them. Some of the items, she denies possessing, and I accept that I may have difficulty proving otherwise. However, some of the items, she has acknowledge possession of.

This is her response to my list...

Quote

Items x, y, and z are in my storage facility and will be returned when I empty the container. The respondent can have these items sooner if he wishes to cover the cost of emptying it now.

This statement was sanctioned by her solicitor. Can she demand I pay in order to get my personal items returned to me?

She says you do not have to pay when she empties the container so the choice is yours. Really, this sort of stuff isn't worth litigating over.

When she empties the container is likely 6 months time or.longer.

No one would stand for.it if u tried the same thing.

These are chattels. And they are chattels you are currently without so your life or health hardly depends upon them. Litigating chattels is a mugs game unless they are the Crown jewels in which case they would not be in a container.

You misunderstand....

My wife is fighting every fight in our divorce. I make a settlement offer... she comes back wanting joint life maintenance.

This despite she continuously did everything in her power to destroy my career... false accusations, taking my equipment, disrupting my work,:etc.

Now she has incorrectly accused me of taking contents from the house even though she was living alone and removed everything of value.

Now she has actually admitted to possession of my personal property. And if i want it, in my time vs hers....I have to pay.

Put simply.. . She calls me controlling and narcissistic. But it is her who is insisting on maintaining control and for me to accept her demands.

I have no intention of wasting time or money fighting for this stuff. In fact, I'd prefer to state to the court that in order to meet my obligations I simply need consideration in the settlement to replace these items.

My question to you, David, as the industry expert is.... does the court system support HER in holding my personal possessions to some form of ransom?

That appears to be what you are suggesting and I think its wrong.

Sometimes you jump to the conclusion that the court will be unfair. That's not what David is saying here. You could well find the court agrees with you and your wife is ordered to provide your belongings at her expense. However, the question is whether it is worth the court fees to do so for the sake of six more months without these belongings.

I see....


Of course if it was the other way around SHE WOULD.

SHE is in receipt of Legal Aid and has little concern for her mounting legal bill.

They raised a directions hearing in June, claiming that I failed to obey an order of the court. Even within their application they acknowledged that I had never been served (or otherwise provided) with a copy of the approved court order.

Madness! And yes...the judge merely ensured I had a copy and extended dates on he order.

For that, my wife had a barrister and a paralegal in attendance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2023 10:45PM by spartacus.

Yes, but your ex-wife is an irrational lunatic. If she wants to spend £10k in legal fees to recover £200 of goods, then the best divorce tactic is to let her.

It's also obvious she's being badly represented. Not serving you is unbelievably poor, hence why the judge must have shook his head at them and extended your time to respond. The judge is not going to bother doing any more than that when someone is represented because he will blame the solicitor, not the litigant. I wouldn't be surprised if your wife's solicitor got a bollocking by a partner at their firm for such a stupid mistake.

Law as a field is full of idiots who think they are more intelligent than they really are, especially in areas like Family Law. They revere judges who can't stay consistent, they struggle with basic paperwork and some of the worst even encourage people to litigate fruitless cases. The best (and cheapest) thing to do is sit back and let them make fools of themselves and only step in when you are required to do something.

You mentioned once that your wife got legal aid, which normally comes about from making false allegations (or much more rarely, actual abuse). Legal Aid lawyers are invariably shit at their jobs, as you have witnessed first hand. If they were actually any good at being a solicitor then 1) they wouldn't offer legal aid and 2) they wouldn't work in family law. Getting a legal aid lawyer is the worst of both worlds. You get someone who can't advocate well but who is an officer of the court and can't use any "clever" but unethical tactics. Or in your wife's case, she got someone who hasn't realised they're advocating for an abuser and it's all going to blow up in their face at some point in the near future.

>>Or in your wife's case, she got someone who hasn't realised they're advocating for an abuser and it's all going to blow up in their face at some point in the near future.<<

There a few things about this. First, we don't know whether the wife is an abuser or not. Certainly the husband says so but that is only one side of the story. The husband may be right, but perhaps he is not. It is unwise to be categorical on the basis of only one side of the story.

Second, what the wife's lawyers are doing is exactly what you are doing. They are taking their account of events from the wife. They are entitled to do that and you can hardly expect them to do otherwise. Sometimes there comes a point where hard evidence contradicts what a client is saying but until that point comes a solicitor has to accept the client's account of events.

Third, even abusers are entitled to be legally represented just as murderers and rapists et al are. In fact it is precisely when accused of wrongdoing that people usually most need legal advice.

As to Legal Aid, well, don't get me started on that. Quite why a person should be entitled to Legal Aid just because they allege domestic violence is beyond me.

David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There a few things about this. First, we don't
> know whether the wife is an abuser or not.
> Certainly the husband says so but that is only one
> side of the story. The husband may be right, but
> perhaps he is not. It is unwise to be categorical
> on the basis of only one side of the story.
>

I don't advocate anyone accepting my side of events as the gospel truth, unless they know me personally. I don't think she is a lunatic, I just think she is hurt and angry...I think we had issues, I had an affair, because we were not able to talk through our issues....She's a scouser...I probably should have known what I was dealing with beforehand.

Quote

As to Legal Aid, well, don't get me started on that. Quite why a person should be entitled to Legal Aid just because they allege domestic violence is beyond me.

I despair! It goes beyond legal aid. My wife has been believed, supported, and encouraged at every turn because she alleges domestic violence. She was told we are not suitable for mediation because of it, without anyone ever talking to me. The police, the lawyers....everyone encourages the fight. Had that support not been so readily available simply through her say so, maybe we could have received counselling and not been fighting for 3 years.

David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>Or in your wife's case, she got someone who
> hasn't realised they're advocating for an abuser
> and it's all going to blow up in their face at
> some point in the near future.<<
>
> There a few things about this. First, we don't
> know whether the wife is an abuser or not.
> Certainly the husband says so but that is only one
> side of the story. The husband may be right, but
> perhaps he is not. It is unwise to be categorical
> on the basis of only one side of the story.

I've watched a video of his wife attacking him. People who aren't abusive don't attack people. Also, it is my understanding she has a conviction too.

>
> Second, what the wife's lawyers are doing is
> exactly what you are doing. They are taking their
> account of events from the wife. They are entitled
> to do that and you can hardly expect them to do
> otherwise. Sometimes there comes a point where
> hard evidence contradicts what a client is saying
> but until that point comes a solicitor has to
> accept the client's account of events.

I only partially agree with that. Good solicitors act in their client's interests. That includes attempting to persuade the client to be realistic. Whereas this jumble sale legal aid team sound like they take a "state is paying" attitude and are trying everything, including the ridiculous. I mean, joint lives spousal maintenance? Who gets that nowadays?
>
> Third, even abusers are entitled to be legally
> represented just as murderers and rapists et al
> are. In fact it is precisely when accused of
> wrongdoing that people usually most need legal
> advice.

Yes, but normally legal aid is not given to people for fruitless civil matters when they themselves have a conviction for abuse.
>
> As to Legal Aid, well, don't get me started on
> that. Quite why a person should be entitled to
> Legal Aid just because they allege domestic
> violence is beyond me.

Well, given how shit legal aid lawyers tend to be I can live with it, provided the government keep their fees low (i.e. what they are worth)

I don't really think any of this is worth my further comment.