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: Consent Order not complied with - 5 months ago
You could do it yourself but you would need to learn how to do it and whether that is practical only you know. If this is a court order within the context of a divorce then a family law solicitor should be able to do this. Yes, there will be a court fee to pay. Provided you are successful and you have written the appropriate letter before action to your ex you should in due course get an order frby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Spousal Maintenance / Wife Claiming disability/inability to work (no children) - 5 months ago
Do remember that courts see this sort of thing all the time. They are used to seeing otherwise healthy people saying they have this, that or other ailment just as they see people saying they need a fortune to live on every month. They view such exaggerations with scepticism. Like I said, it is different if someone quite obviously has a life changing illness but courts are well used to spotting thby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Form E mandatory? - 5 months ago
There are several possible reasons why solicitors do this which may include:- 1. It covers their backs. 2. It is time consuming and so generates more fee income. 3. In the event that such disclosure does not result in agreement and ultimately it is necessary to issue a court application having two Forms E to play with is a fruitful way of generating more correspondence. 'In your voluntaby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Consent Order not complied with - 5 months ago
Generally if a lump sum is due by a certain date and it is not paid it can be recovered as a debt like any other. Also, the debt in these circumstances will normally bear interest at what is called the 'statutory rate' from the date at which the lump sum should have been paid to the date it is actually paid. The statutory rate has been fixed at 8% for donkeys' years. This interestby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Divorce/financial settlement - 5 months ago
This does tend to illustrate why it is usually a bad idea to move out of the matrimonial home until financial issues have been formally and finally resolved. That is because the spouse still in occupation of the home usually then has little incentive to hurry and often has an incentive to spin things out for as long as possible. Also, of course, it is much more likely that agreement can be reacheby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Spousal Maintenance / Wife Claiming disability/inability to work (no children) - 5 months ago
If your wife is currently working and has a history of employment then it is very unlikely that a court would think that some ache or other now prevents her from working. Most judges tend to take the view that things like depression and back ache clear up once financial issues are formally and finally settled. Obviously if someone suffers a stroke or becomes quadriplegic after a road traffic acciby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Form E mandatory? - 5 months ago
You should not complete a Form E simply because that is what your wife's solicitor wants. If a court has directed it that is another matter but it is rarely necessary or advisable to complete a Form E unless a court has ordered it. The form is designed for contentious proceedings. It is true that in order to be able to reach an informed agreement both spouses need to know the basic financialby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mediation discussions - 5 months ago
>>So, I presume this means that any direct correspondence I have had with my wife by email (not marked 'without prejudice') could be treated as open correspondence and in theory produced to a court if necessary? Quite possibly, yes. However, like I said this can be complicated. Context can be very important. If X writes, 'Without prejudice I offer you £100K in full and fiby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
ConfusionReigns - 5 months ago
For the sake of transparency I have decided to delete all further posts from ConfusionReigns. I do not have the time or inclination to spend time in continual argument. I hope that causes those posts to cease. I mention that because I have left the previous posts up. The alternative would be to deactivate the user which would delete all the user's posts. I don't really want to do thaby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mediation discussions - 5 months ago
If the original discussions were 'without prejudice' you can refer to them in further 'without prejudice' correspondence but it is very important that you head any such correspondence with the words 'without prejudice'. If you do not and discussions which were 'without prejudice' (and which remain without prejudice) are accidentally included in a court bundby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Has ex been entirely open in previous Disclosures? - 5 months ago
>>Should the money had come from advanced inheritance from her mother, should this have been disclosed prior to the Settlement agreement? No. In general an expected inheritance from someone who is still living will not be taken into account as an asset. All sorts of things might come to pass before receiving such an inheritance. The person whose estate it is may change their will, the eby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Reasonable Reduction in Income - 5 months ago
I have never said that weaker parties should not try to improve their earning capacity if they can, Indeed, most people would notice that almost every post I write about the subject contains the phrase 'earning capacity' rather than earnings. There would be no point in that if it was not to emphasise that it is earning capacity that matters not earnings. However, when, say, a wifeby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Reasonable Reduction in Income - 5 months ago
>>they don't let the weaker party laze around sponging off their ex. No, they don't. However, that doesn't look to be what is happening here though, is it? >>My STBX was a SAHM for 7 years and has been a full time student for the past three years. She also works on weekends for extra income. Does any of that sound like lazing around or 'sponging'? Onby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Reasonable Reduction in Income - 5 months ago
Evidence is what matters in such circumstances. No-one expects you to work flat out. However, if you cannot work a full day for physical and mental reasons that will usually require appropriate medical evidence that the condition is permanent and will not get better once the financial issues arising for the marriage have been formally and finally settled.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Instructing a solicitor - 5 months ago
If you say so. Nothing obliges anyone to instruct a solicitor. A person can represent themselves in the Supreme Court if they want. That does not get around the fact that (a) it is difficult and (b) full of pitfalls. And a hybrid approach can all too easily end up with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. That is not to say that a person cannot keep costs down by taking adviceby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Reasonable Reduction in Income - 5 months ago
>>David here is the only solicitor I'm aware of who still seems to think courts will be overly generous and undemanding to weaker financial parties.<< You are very wrong about that. It isn't just a matter of opinion. It is a matter of law. Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act and the first two subsections read as follows: >>25 (1) It shall be the duty of theby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Instructing a solicitor - 5 months ago
>>I do most of the communication with my wife's solicitor directly. Then on your own head be it. I once acted for a client who did that (unknown to me). When we attended the FDR we put forward a perfectly reasonable proposal only to be confronted with a sheaf of letters which the client had written and which completely undermined the position put forward on his behalf. Unless you knby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Divorce/financial settlement - 5 months ago
You do have a solicitor so you should rely upon that solicitor, who knows much more about the detail and background, for advice. I will say, though, that the house is jointly owned. Your husband is as entitled to live there as you are and neither of you is compelled to continue living there.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Divorce - 5 months ago
If the solution ends up so that your wife remains in the former matrimonial home with the children then that is likely to be an outcome with disadvantageous consequences for you. If that is the outcome then the way that would normally be achieved would be that the house was transferred into your wife's sole name, she would promise to use her best efforts to get you removed from the mortgageby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Divorce - 5 months ago
Well, these are very skeletal facts and much might actually depend upon the detail. However, based on these facts and with the caveat that the details may affect the answer significantly the rough answer is:- 1. You have a pension worth £400k and your wife has a pension worth £85k so total pension assets are £485K. Half of £485K is £242,500. Therefore to equalise pensions requires a transfer oby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Asking for daughter,advice please? - 6 months ago
There is no reason why one parent cannot take children to see their grandparent and it is natural that the husband would want to do so. There is no reason why your daughter should see her mother in law if she does not want to but she is not entitled to stop the children seeing their paternal grandmother simply because she dislikes her. Nor, for that matter, is it reasonable for her to dictate teby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Separation & divorce financial liabilities - 6 months ago
Well, the child is an adult who will no doubt finish full time education in the foreseeable future so it is really only the needs of you and your wife that will matter. Your wife does at least also have an income and if she only works 18 hours there is no obvious reason why she should not be expected to increase her hours and her earnings. In principle this is a clean break case (although it mayby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Reasonable Reduction in Income - 6 months ago
>>I ignored "giving birth" because its entirely irrelevant to financial settlements No, in your opinion it is irrelevant which is rather different. In fact it is relevant to financial settlements as 'contribution' which is specifically defined as more extensive than contributions measured only financially. Most people would accept that giving birth to children is a siby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Reasonable Reduction in Income - 6 months ago
I don't think there is much point in continuing this conversation. You clearly have your own views regardless of anything I say. However, please note there is a difference between 'giving birth' and 'raising children'. I am sure that is a distinction which does not need to be explained to your wife.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Reasonable Reduction in Income - 6 months ago
Quite apart from the fact that you married this 'lazy' spouse she has actually given birth to and raised your children. Courts don't like people who shirk their responsibilities or who act deliberately in order to thwart the jurisdiction of the court. Like I said, judges are usually resourceful and intelligent people who will often find a way.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Landlord renting to brother, spouse divorcing - 6 months ago
If it is your property and can clearly be shown to be such then it is not matrimonial property and should not be at risk in your brother's divorce. Of course, there may be more to this than meets the eye but in principle your property is your property and its ownership has nothing to do with your brother or his wife in any divorce proceedings.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Probability of a Clean Break (is all I want 
) - 6 months ago
So far as I can see your wife is in employment and has presumably been in the same employment for a long time so claiming to be in bad health will not very likely take her very far. In principle in cases where there are no children and both parties are in employment a court will prefer a clean break. You should not take no for an answer so far as the bank is concerned. If your wife is exploitiby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Reasonable Reduction in Income - 6 months ago
Well, if there is one things courts get very agitated about it is people who try to stick two fingers up to them. Judges are in general very intelligent and resourceful. How they deal with people like that very much depends upon on the circumstances so they will react as they think appropriate. Within the context of settling financial matters arising from divorce there are three obvious thingsby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: lived together after divorce... effect on financial consent order? - 6 months ago
In order to answer your question properly a solicitor would need to know what was in the original divorce petition - ie whether it was you or him and whether any financial claims were made in that divorce petition. Also a solicitor would need to know whether either of you has remarried since the divorce. These additional facts have a significant bearing on the answer.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Accurate? - 6 months ago
>>Certainly solicitors who want my business might be telling me what I'd like to hear That about sums it up really. Also, frankly, when it comes to individual cases statistics matter not one jot. What matters are the details of individual circumstances both personal and financial. Finally, the fact that a firm or solicitor is member of Resolution does not in my experience usuallby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum