Final Narrative Statement (Response)

My wife has recently submitted her S25 Final Narrative Statement, over a week after I was required to submit mine. But this was by court instruction and not an issue at this time.

She also had to submit a statement regarding property from our family home, which she alleged I removed, even though she was the last one living in t he property and left it all behind when she moved out.

First, with regards to the marital assets, he submitted her statement LATE, and within 24 hours that I had to submit my S25, so I never got to respond or refer to it. Should I do that now and submit it to the court? OR wait for the final hearing? What about any supporting evidence that I have proving her claims to be false. Submit now? or later?

Same question for her S25 Statement. Her statement is basically an attack on me, listing items which I have purchased over the past 10 years, including prices and alleging I lived a glorious life while she was kept at home with no money. Do I respond to that now? or later? and the evidence? Photos, Videos, Emails, etc.

She also list information on the S25; accusations, which I beleive could have only come from her opening my mail...which is a crime. Respond now? later? cross examination?

Thanks.

Each party cannot just keep endlessly submitting statements and evidence in response to the other. Each can only file and serve statements which have been ordered by the court. If the rule were otherwise it would result in total confusion. The courts restrict statements in the interests of keeping litigation within bounds. You can raise whatever is relevant in cross examination. However, you cannot produce documentary evidence at a final hearing which has not previously been disclosed to the other side in good time.

Which is what I thought.

Thankfully, they did not submit ANY evidence with either of their statements, siting "technical difficulties". Therefore, presumably their evidence will be submitted late, which I am assuming I could contest? Or (whats good for the goose)....and just quickly gather all of my additional evidence, including that which refutes her claims....

...Whether the court accepts of rejects either or both submissions....its worth a try.

Another question...I have submitted multiple settlement offers. They fail to respond for long periods of time. then after repeated prompts from me, they simple reply that my offer is refused with no counter. (It now looks like she is only interested in a maintenance arrangement). How do I raise a complaint of unreasonable negotiation on their part?

It is very difficult to establish 'unreasonable negotiation' because sometimes just rejecting a proposal is all one can do. You can see a clean example with the junior doctors' strike. So far as I can make out the junior doctors want something like a 30% increase in pay and/or restoration of their pay to its purchasing power in 2009. The government, unsurprisingly, says that the taxpayer cannot afford that and it has proposed something the taxpayer can supposedly afford. It goes on to say, 'This is the offer, take it or leave it.'. Now, is the government supposed to continue to 'negotiate' endlessly with the junior doctors? To the extent that by such 'negotiation' the junior doctors actually mean, 'Keep making us offers and increasing your offer until eventually you offer enough for us to accept?' That is probably unrealistic.

There can often come a point in any negotiation where one party wants X, the other says Y is all that is on offer. Whether one or other position is unreasonable is impossible to say but where what one party wants is unreasonable the only thing the other can do is say, 'No'. Obviously one must try to reach agreement in good faith but sometimes agreement just isn't possible for all sorts of reasons.

Is that what solicitors do Terry? Ie...listen to an argument then completely change it in order to make the point they want to make?

At what point did I say or suggest anyone said tale it or leave it? This is nothing like the junior Dr's argument.

And yes... they are supposed to keep increasing offers until one is acceptable, because that is negotiation. Take it or leave it is NOT negotiation. And when the direction of the court is to negotiate, surely not negotiating is unreasonable.

But in my case...

I made an offer. They said no. No alternate offer. Just.... court.

Why? Simple....

.... because court is the only way the solicitors make more money! And my wife is not smart enough to see that.

Same reason as take a barrister and a paralegal to a directions hearing and destroy your own argument in the application. Same reason as take the same staff to a final hearing and not upload the required 800 page bundle until hours before the hearing.... greed! Money!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2023 10:26PM by spartacus.

>>they are supposed to keep increasing offers until one is acceptable, because that is negotiation.<<

No, absolutely not. That is not how negotiation works. It is not uncommon in situations like this for one spouse to be completely unreasonable. A completely unreasonable spouse will sometimes say, 'I want absolutely everything. You get nothing.' You cannot 'negotiate with such a person. All you can do is put forward whatever proposals you think are reasonable and say, 'That is my offer. Take it or leave it. If you are not willing to do this then the judge will decide.'

Of course, litigation is a matter of economics so if 'I want everything' amounts to wanting £5,000 because that is all there is then there is no point in litigating it. Even though the other spouse in that case is being utterly unreasonable it still makes more sense to yield the point than to spend what would very likely be more than that in litigation costs.

Now, I do not know what the issues are between you and your wife. For all I know she may be making some sort of reasonable offer and you may be making some other type of reasonable offer. In such circumstances there is something to be gained by negotiation. However, you make a mistake if you think that the way to deal with proposals which are utterly unreasonable is to move towards the utterly unreasonable position. Such people need to be faced down not negotiated with.

Do you seriously suggest that Zelensky should negotiate with Putin by saying, 'How much of my country will you accept I should give you in order that you stop bombing us?'

David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>they are supposed to keep increasing offers
> until one is acceptable, because that is
> negotiation.<<
>
> No, absolutely not. That is not how negotiation
> works. It is not uncommon in situations like this
> for one spouse to be completely unreasonable. A
> completely unreasonable spouse will sometimes say,
> 'I want absolutely everything. You get nothing.'
> You cannot 'negotiate with such a person. All you
> can do is put forward whatever proposals you think
> are reasonable and say, 'That is my offer. Take it
> or leave it. If you are not willing to do this
> then the judge will decide.'
>
> Of course, litigation is a matter of economics so
> if 'I want everything' amounts to wanting £5,000
> because that is all there is then there is no
> point in litigating it. Even though the other
> spouse in that case is being utterly unreasonable
> it still makes more sense to yield the point than
> to spend what would very likely be more than that
> in litigation costs.
>
> Now, I do not know what the issues are between you
> and your wife. For all I know she may be making
> some sort of reasonable offer and you may be
> making some other type of reasonable offer. In
> such circumstances there is something to be gained
> by negotiation. However, you make a mistake if you
> think that the way to deal with proposals which
> are utterly unreasonable is to move towards the
> utterly unreasonable position. Such people need to
> be faced down not negotiated with.
>
> Do you seriously suggest that Zelensky should
> negotiate with Putin by saying, 'How much of my
> country will you accept I should give you in order
> that you stop bombing us?'

If Putin said, he wanted a small portion...and "promised" he would never come back wanting more....then actually yes i do. It would certainly be less costly than the devestation and lives being lost through war. But that is not a fair comparison as we all know if they were to yield, it would not be the end.

My wife wants maintenance! THAT appears to be her sticking point. My take it or leave it offer includes that I will not pay ongoing maintenance to a woman who got away with physical abuse for 2 years and had ME arrested for it. Nor will I agree to pay ongoing support to her considering the financial devestation she has caused. I would on the other hand happily negotiate if I knew there would be a line drawn at some point....but like putin, and like the offer she made in January yet refused to draft a court order agreeing to it...it will never be the end.

Some people can not be reasoned with....on that we agree.

I'm currently waiting to see if the court will accept 1 hour of video of me being punched in the head as evidence that she had a severe effect on my earning capacity.

FUN TIMES!

>>My wife wants maintenance! THAT appears to be her sticking point. My take it or leave it offer includes that I will not pay ongoing maintenance to a woman who got away with physical abuse for 2 years and had ME arrested for it.

I think you will probably find that whether your wife is entitled to maintenance or not will depend upon the figures, why she says she needs maintenance and how persuasive that is rather than upon what you say about her behaviour.

For what it is worth, if A says, 'I want maintenance' and B says, 'No' about the only way that difference can be negotiated away is if B says, 'OK, I will pay £X for such and such period and that's it'. The £X and the period can be negotiated but, 'I want maintenance' and 'No' can't.

David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>My wife wants maintenance! THAT appears to be
> her sticking point. My take it or leave it offer
> includes that I will not pay ongoing maintenance
> to a woman who got away with physical abuse for 2
> years and had ME arrested for it.
>
> I think you will probably find that whether your
> wife is entitled to maintenance or not will depend
> upon the figures, why she says she needs
> maintenance and how persuasive that is rather than
> upon what you say about her behaviour.
>
> For what it is worth, if A says, 'I want
> maintenance' and B says, 'No' about the only way
> that difference can be negotiated away is if B
> says, 'OK, I will pay £X for such and such period
> and that's it'. The £X and the period can be
> negotiated but, 'I want maintenance' and 'No'
> can't.


Fair enough, but what about the case where she says "I want maintenance"...but hasn't actually stipulated why, how much, or for how long. In my past experience the court does not like it when someone leaves the amount up to the judge to decide. Last hearing she asked for maintenance pending suit...the judge rejected it. They then submitted a new application with a rediculous amount, which we negotiated to something reasonable. (yet still annoying). This is the second time at our (final) hearing...and again...no amount is specified. How is the court likely to respond?

The courts are obliged always to consider whether there should be a clean break and they will only order maintenance where that is actually necessary. It is your wife who is claiming maintenance and so the responsibility is on her to explain for how much, for how long and why. If she cannot satisfy the court on these points the court will not award her maintenance. It is as simple as that. The fact that the court refused to award her maintenance pending suit suggests that her case is weak or non-existent. Notice none of this has to do with her behaviour towards you. I think you will probably find that is irrelevant to what the court has to decide about maintenance so you are probably fretting about it unnecessarily.

Thank you.

I sometimes don't like your response, but this.forum, and your time and honesty are always appreciated.

Thank you.

It is actually quite easy to tell people what they want to hear but doing that where litigation is concerned does them no favours. I have lost count of the number of hopeless cases I have seen being fought which firm advice at the outset might have avoided. Of course, people are always free to ignore advice. That is their prerogative (and sometimes they are right to do so). All the same, it is usually best to be blunt with advice where there is not much doubt about the outcome.

There is no way in hell you (or anyone else) could predict the outcome of my 3 year fight. I certainly can't. All I can do is lay my cards on the table and hope the result is fair. . And roll a few dice occasionally. My wife is excruciatingly manipulative. I often think if she had channelled that differently she could have done amazing things.

Thanks again.

Can I object to "evidence" submitted by my wife?

Her Section 25 Statement is not more than a 29 page assault on everything that she sees is wrong with me...plus "evidence" bringing the total to 119 pages.

She has submitted "evidence" including photographs of bruises to her arms, face, legs, side. In her index she lists them as "Injuries caused by the respondent". However I have no knowledge of how she actually got these bruises, and there is nothing to physically suggest they were caused by me...I admit...for example on one occassion I had a broken clavicle; she chased me around the house with a broom handle. As she swung it above her head, I pushed her away causing her to fall into the kitchen table. But i DID NOT attack her.

This is in contrast, and obviously in response to my evidence which is VIDEOS of HER punching me, slapping, kicking, strangling...while I was trying to work and earn a living, hence I included them to demonstrate the effect on my income and earning potential.

But my evidence are videos of HER. Her evidence does not prove anything.

Can I object? Or do I just need to raise the point at hearing?

I think I have already told you that these things are not really relevant to whether she is entitled to maintenance or not. I doubt whether a court is going to want to spend much time on them.

David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think I have already told you that these things
> are not really relevant to whether she is entitled
> to maintenance or not. I doubt whether a court is
> going to want to spend much time on them.


Of course you have, and I completely understand that. But...I am litigant in person. I (obviously) do not know all the legal processes, and what can and can't be submitted.

But all I am doing...while trying to appear more methodical and practical than my wife and her solicitors, she is legally represented....And SHE is presenting statements and evidence that go far beyond pushing the boundaries than I am.

Clearly this tactic worked for her with the police!

But...give she has solicitors, wouldn't it seem to be prudent to expect her solicitors to prevent her from submitting irrelevant statements and/or evidence. They seem to be encouraging it. And while in my S25, I raised abuse in the context that she prevented me from working and caused me to be fired on more than one occassion; HER S25....was just an abusive attack against me. I really hope a judge sees that.

But I don't get why her solicitors appear to encourage that behaviour. Personally, I think they are just milking it!

Would YOU expect her solicitors to reign her in? stick to the facts? and whats relevant?

Frankly, it is impossible for me or anyone else to know what the answer to this without seeing all the paperwork and knowing what all the issues are. I am certainly not going to criticise any solicitor without seeing the paperwork upon which any decisions are based.