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: Final hearing - 4 months ago
Like the barrister said, the judge did not order that mention be made of the open offer in the directions and so it is quite properly not included in the draft order. However, you have the barrister's letter to refer to when it comes to including the open offer in the final trial bundle. The normal costs order in this type of case is that each side pays their own so if your ex is travelliby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Final hearing - 4 months ago
'Costs reserved' means that the issue of who pays what costs is to be left to the final hearing. As to any open offers whether that was to be included in the order depends entirely upon what the judge ordered on the day.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Insecure Job during divorce - 4 months ago
>>I'm thinking more along the lines of involuntary job loss. I guess if I lost my job the court could order I carried on paying It's not so much that a court would order you to keep paying. Rather it is that if a court orders spousal maintenance and the person paying loses his job (it is almost invariably a 'he') then the person paying has to apply to the court to varby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Insecure Job during divorce - 4 months ago
>>Perhaps I'm incorrect but a sum based on ability to pay sounds more flexible than a promise to pay. No, you are correct. Mind you, spousal maintenance ordered by a court does not reduce automatically if the income of the person paying falls. Any reduction has either to be agreed with the recipient or application has to be made to the court to vary and such an application takes timby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: FDR - 4 months ago
Remember that if you reach agreement before a final hearing that hearing becomes unnecessary. Often people do reflect on what a judge has said at an FDR and make suitably adjusted offers. Negotiations don't have to end just because there was no agreement at an FDR. In fact it is often the case that one or both parties only receive a realistic assessment of the likely outcome at an FDR. I havby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Insecure Job during divorce - 4 months ago
>>I'm always curious to understand how people can be leaned on to make undertakings like that. Courts can be very persuasive if they are ever put into that position. Typically it goes, 'Either you give the undertaking or I will order X'. Neither your own lawyer nor that of your opponent is in a position to do that but courts are. All a lawyer can do is say, 'If you doby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Insecure Job during divorce - 4 months ago
A court will want to secure a clean break between you to the extent that it can. It would be very reluctant to provide for a long continuing financial arrangement (apart from child maintenance). Therefore to the extent you can show your proposals meet your wife's reasonable needs it will usually be looking at something with a shorter rather than a longer duration. This is not to say that eveby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Insecure Job during divorce - 4 months ago
For what it's worth I think it very unlikely that you should be liable for the mortgage plus child maintenance plus £300. After all, maintaining children involves contributing to the cost of their accommodation so there is a certain amount of double counting going on here. Similarly the notion that your pension should be split 50/50 when the children are 18 is absurd. Who in their right sensby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: FDR - 4 months ago
Generally speaking post separation debt stays with the person who incurred it. Notice this is 'generally speaking'. There can be exceptions but it is up to the person arguing for something different to justify it.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Fair divorce - 4 months ago
This is a long marriage and the husband earns more than twice as much as the wife. He gets the house. What does she get? On her income she will struggle to buy a place comparable to the one her husband lives in. Whether this arrangement is 'fair' is debatable to say the least.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Fair divorce - 4 months ago
>>At least, currently, they both agree solicitors should not get involved but there have been no discussions about finances yet! I really do think Barbara should get her own legal advice as soon as possible. She does not necessarily need formally to instruct a solicitor to act on her behalf but she does need basic legal advice so that she understands what her legal position is rather thaby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: FDR - 4 months ago
It is unusual for costs to be awarded against a person at a final hearing about matrimonial finances. The usual rule is that each side pays its own costs. There are exceptions. Sometimes a court will make an order for costs against a person the court considers to have been very unreasonable in the way he/she has behaved during the litigation. This is not a routine situation. When this happens itby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Fair divorce - 4 months ago
>>Can this arrangement simply be acknowledged and built into the final divorce financial agreement? It can, yes. Mind you this presupposes that the arrangement is basically fair. A court will not approve an arrangement which is unfair whether that has been 'agreed' or not.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: FDR - 4 months ago
>>if we agree without it reaching a final hearing- does the property adjustment order come into effect ? It takes effect when it is approved by a court and becomes a court order (by consent if agreement has been reached). This means it can come into effect at any time after it has been agreed and approved - whether at an FDR or later. A 'final hearing' becomes unnecessary underby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Pension Share remains unpaid - 4 months ago
If you had solicitors acting for you at the time then you should consult a new solicitor to examine whether you have a potential action for negligence against your former solicitor. If what actually happened is that you did not use your own solicitor but instead signed paperwork that was prepared by your ex husband's solicitor then you are in a much more difficult position. Also, it not qby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Fair divorce - 4 months ago
Please note. The house has NOT been settled. There is no divorce let alone a final financial settlement made within that divorce. Any less formal arragement such as this is potentially capable of being re-opened. If W has pensions worth A and B and H has a pension worth X then there is no obvious reason why W should be entitled to half of X. The starting calculation would be half of A plus B plusby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Fair divorce - 4 months ago
It doesn't matter in what format disclosure takes place if it is to be done on a purely voluntary basis. The financial position of most people can usually be set out on one side of A4. Having said that, it is important that there actually is proper disclosure. She cannot make any informed decision without, for instance, knowing what the exact value of her husband's pension is. And thatby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: FDR - 4 months ago
>>Do i have to respond to this email when the courts have not directed this question to be answered. No. If they have submitted a questionnaire which was approved by the court and you have answered it then that is that. People are not entitled to submit endless questions. The purpose of the formal procedure is to prevent this type of rolling question. However, do bear in mind that theby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: FDR - 4 months ago
The only updating disclosure you need to provide is anything which has been directed by a court or which you would have to disclose in a Form E if you were completing it now and which would need to be disclosed because of an udate or change from a previous Form E. Uou do not have to disclose bank statements going back years unless that has been directed by a court or in a questionnaire approved bby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: FDR - 5 months ago
Updating disclosure means providing copies of all documents that needed to be disclosed in the Form E from the date of the Form E to the current date. For instance, since the Form E there will have been more bank statements and payslips etc. It also means disclosing anything which has changed since Form E and providing documentary evidence. For instance, since Form E a person could have been madeby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Final Order - 5 months ago
How important it is to get a final order about financial issues very much depends upon individual circumstances and the factors which weigh with one spouse may be very different when looked at from the viewpoint of the other spouse. Say, for instance, H and W have no assets and H knows that W is going to remarry as soon as the decree absolute is through. In that case there is probably no major beby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Expected Financial Split? - 5 months ago
>>Is there any way I can dispute this charge? Yes. It is prefectly reasonable to say, as you do, that since the proposal is that your ex is retaining the property there are no 'notional costs of sale'. Even if they were to say that for some reason your ex might sell the property in the future there is (a) no reason why you should pay those costs and (b) those costs would likelyby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: FDR - 5 months ago
The proposal to settle is your proposal to settle. You simply have to tell them what that is at least 14 days before the FDR. Although it is without prejudice - and should be marked as such - it is also helpful if any proposal is (a) realistic and (b) reasoned. The point about an FDR appointment is that it provides the opportunity to negotiate on a without prejudice basis and also to hear whatby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: FDR - 5 months ago
It depends what the order says. Sometimes exchange is simultaneous, other times it is sequential. The wording of the order is what is relevant to answering this question.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: No win no fee solicitors for financial orders - 6 months ago
Frankly, I think it is unlikely. Part of the reason for that is that it is not so easy to define a 'win' in matrimonial finance cases. The reality is that the same income and capital which used to support one home is usually divided so it has to support two homes. That means the standard of living of both spouses often drops - at least in the short term. Also, when it comes to 'faby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: schedule of deficiencies - 7 months ago
>>i am struggling to see how she has any sort of claim of 50% of FMH She may or she may not but nothing you have said in your post necessarily affects that issue. Whether a perso does or does not have a Rolex watch is likely to be supremely irrelvant to what share of the FMH they may be entitled to.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: schedule of deficiencies - 7 months ago
>>At what stage can these be issued and exchanged then ? After the FDR? Schedules of deficiencies are not 'exchanged'. There are either serious deficiencies in a reply to a questionnaire or there are not. IF there are serious deficiencies AND they are relevant to the issues in the case then a person is entitled to raise a schedule of deficiencies whether the other side does orby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Insecure Job during divorce - 7 months ago
If you have a job earning £X and, before the financial issues arising from the divorce are settled, you take a job earning £X - then a court could take the view that your earning capacity is £X and therefore any spousal periodical payments you are ordered to pay should be based on £X. A court will do that if for some reason it dislikes the evidence of the husband and prefers that of the wife. Thaby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Do i need a solicitor - 7 months ago
It is quite easy for a litigant in person to make mistakes which a lawyer would not make. It is probably sensible to at least take some legal advice before you commit yourself even if you do not formally instruct a lawyer to act on your behalf.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Insecure Job during divorce - 7 months ago
>>would I be okay to accept this opportunity now on the grounds it provides income security and better prospects? Provided you can justify the job change no-one expects you to put your life on hold. Do remember that your ex will say that you have deliberately chosen to earn less so as to limit her claims for maintenance. Therefore you must be prepared to justify yourself - preferably witby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum