Show all posts by user
This is a UK based forum about divorce and related issues. Feel free to contribute. Your experiences or opinions may help others. The link to the home page on the left leads to basic information about most common divorce questions. You can use the search function to search the forum
Re: Expected Financial Split? - 2 years ago
It rather depends what your respective incomes are (or, to be more precise, your respective reasonable earning capacities). Say A and B have similar housing needs. Say the cost of that housing would be £400K. Say the matrimonial capital to be divided is also £400K but A earns £10,000 per annum and B earns £100,000 per annum. In such circumstances A is likely to get more than half of the matrimby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
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-nuby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
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 otherwiseby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Final Narrative Statement (Response) - 2 years ago
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 taby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Final Narrative Statement (Response) - 2 years ago
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 canby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Legal aid - 2 years ago
Well, the first thing it is important you understand is that if you recover any property or anything with any monetary value in your litigation you MUST inform the Legal Aid authorities. That is because you have been in receipt of Legal Aid and the chances are that the Legal Aid bill you have incurred far exceeds your monthly contributions. Legal Aid is not a grant. It is effectively a loan. Andby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
I have deleted the posts of ConfusionReigns. Life is too short for me to spend time refuting what is really abuse rather than argument.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
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 thby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
>>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 aby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
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 neeby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
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 Lby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
I think we have established he lives here. What he is much more cagey about is which country 'my EU country' actually is.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Home Contents - 2 years ago
I don't really think any of this is worth my further comment.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Home Contents - 2 years ago
>>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 rightby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Home Contents - 2 years ago
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.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Home Contents - 2 years ago
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.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
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.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Final Narrative Statement - 2 years ago
The point of an FDR hearing is to try to reach agreement. It is a meeting held without prejudice so that proposals to settle can be made without those proposals being used against you later. At an FDR a judge will also express an opinion if asked to do so and/or the judge thinks it would be useful. Because of this most cases do settle at an FDR but they can only settle if both parties agree. A juby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
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 alby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
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 inby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Final Narrative Statement - 2 years ago
Ah, so basically what you are saying is that your wife didn't do as you wanted her to do and for that reason she should be penalised.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
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 namedby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Final Narrative Statement - 2 years ago
No. The fact is your example says more about you than illustrating any fact. You see, you refer to the spouse as 'a lazy bum'. Now quite apart from the fact that if you choose to marry a lazy bum that is your choice and you are the one who has to live with the consequences there are other issues. For a start, I am not quite sure that I would accept your definition of 'a lazy bum�by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Final Narrative Statement - 2 years ago
The fact is that you don't regard it as fair because you are looking at it subjectively. English courts don't look at things subjectively. They look at them objectively and they give reasons for their decisions. Consider the three following situations:- 1. You marry. You bring your £1.5 million into the marriage. Your wife brings nothing. No children. You do not mingle your £1.5 millby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Final Narrative Statement - 2 years ago
What randomer4040 persistently fails to appreciate is that he has a choice whether he gets married or not. And if he does get married most people regard marriage as a partnership and the rules upon divorce are what that particular society decides they are. Islamic law discriminates against women in inheritance, divorce and upon the weight attached to their evidence. Very few people bleat about thby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
>>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 .....by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Final Narrative Statement - 2 years ago
Yes, quite correct. I did delete that post. There are all sorts of reasons why that type of advice is unacceptable unless, of course, a person believes that, say, 'Here's how to cheat HMRC without them finding out' is acceptable advice.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Final Narrative Statement - 2 years ago
There are two observations to make on this:- 1. Yes, lawyers are not personally invested in the outcome. However, that is precisely the point. It is the fact that they are not personally invested that enables them to be objective and to give dispassionate advice. Nor are judges personally invested and for good reason. If they were that would result in injustice. 2. Yes, courts do offerby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
>>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 payby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mortgage Raising Capacity request - 2 years ago
>>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 againsby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum