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: Advice and help needed, wife lying on voluntary disclosure please read - 1 year ago
>>would i be liable tor her legal fees in court ? Normally in applications to settle the financial issues arising from a marriage each side pays its own costs. There are some situations - such as the actual cost of a divorce or an application for maintenance pending suit or a non-molestation order etc - one party is often ordered to pay the other's costs. >>Would the courtby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: LSPO Order states I can not sell car till final hearing. - 1 year ago
I do not think you can reasonably expect an answer to that question.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Mother in law on mortgage for rental property - 1 year ago
It wouldn't really matter whether your mother in law was on the mortgage or not (unless she actually paid the mortgage). What matters is whether she is on the title to the property. She may or may not be. You can check and know for sure by checking with the Land Registry. Assuming she is on the title and not just on the mortgage then you would be saying that your wife is 100% the beneficialby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Advice and help needed, wife lying on voluntary disclosure please read - 1 year ago
>>the longer it’s me paying for the mortgage etc the less claim she will have to property. No, that is not correct. You have the benefit of living in the property whereas your wife does not. Paying the mortgage can be regarded as the equivalent of rent. If the property is in joint names you do not acquire a greater interest just by paying the mortgage after your wife has left. Indeed, yby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Splitting house equity - 1 year ago
>>If it's a discussion between me and my wife I will say because I have paid her share of the mortgage and bills from day one, and because she caused the breakdown of the marriage. This is my idea of fairness and it might be hers, too. << I doubt that your wife will agree. In my experience the breakdown of a marriage is rarely one sided. Nor, for that matter, are finances deciby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Advice and help needed, wife lying on voluntary disclosure please read - 1 year ago
Voluntary disclosure on the basis of exchange of Forms E is rarely a good idea because it can be waste of time and money if no agreement is reached and you need to repeat the Form E process formally in court proceedings. Yes, voluntary disclosure can be referred to later. If two people genuinely want to reach agreement then using a mediator is usually better than voluntary disclosure of Formsby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Lies and Undisclosed Information - 1 year ago
>>How could I have known to question the existence of something I didn't know about? This information existed before the final hearing and you were as able to locate it before the final hearing as after. Cases cannot usually be reopened on the basis that one party has neglected to produce one piece of evidence or another. There would be no end to litigation if that was possible.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: D440 – Request for a search for a Divorce Decree Absolute at - 1 year ago
You should use the name you had in the divorce proceedings. The more information you can supply about those proceedings the easier it will be to locate the decree absolute.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Lies and Undisclosed Information - 1 year ago
I think you will find that issues of disclosure are now water under the bridge. To the extent that this information existed before the final hearing you have almost certainly lost the opportunity to introduce this evidence now. As to the directions hearing you do run the risk that if the court agrees with your wife's draft and overrules your objections. I don't think it is for to saby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Lies and Undisclosed Information - 1 year ago
I would suggest that you contact the court to find out what the directions hearing is about and what it is for. Only when you know this can you decide how to deal with it.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Gas and Electric account in my sole name, living ex partner not willing to put her name on account - 1 year ago
>>My question: is how do I get what’s written in the paragraph above , where it states : The second way is for a proper authority to dictate that her name is to be part of the account as a joint liability for the bills ? << I think they are probably referring to a court order.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Splitting house equity - 1 year ago
>>I'm arguing that it's fair for me to get a greater share. Well, you can argue that but anyone, including your wife, is going to say, 'Why?' What are you going to say then? In any event, I think all of this is likely to be theoretical. I can't see many wives who have the care of children thinking that what you propose is fair.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Can I challenge a court order, directly to court ? - 1 year ago
It is impossible to know without seeing the order. It is quite possible the answer is no because this seems to have been an order you agreed to. An agreed order could normally only be changed if both parties agreed. Your solicitor will know the answer better than anyone here.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: My posts - 1 year ago
Everyone can delete their own posts or, at least, edit them so they have no content.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Splitting house equity - 1 year ago
What you propose doing is representing something to your wife that you know not to be true - that is that the fact that you have paid the mortgage entitles you to a greater share of the equity. You know perfectly well that is not true but that is in effect what you intend telling your wife. Call that 'negotiation' if you want but don't be surprised if others see it differently.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Splitting house equity - 1 year ago
>>Deceiving her would be giving false information about the house price or failing to declare hidden capital. I'm not doing that. << It is rather more than that, though, isn't it? Your argument that you want more than half the equity because you have paid the mortgage. That is presumably what you will be telling your wife as an argument. However, you know for a fact thatby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Splitting house equity - 1 year ago
The 'alternative' you mention basically involves deceiving your wife. You can attempt to do that if you want but only a certain type of person would want to assist you in such an enterprise.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Splitting house equity - 1 year ago
>>How is what we each do with the money relevant? It is very relevant. And, no, I am not going to elaborate because it seems to me that all your questions relate to how you can defeat the legitimate claims of your wife. That is not something I want to assist you with.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Splitting house equity - 1 year ago
That may work depending upon what you each do with the money. However, it is hard to see why your wife would agree. She will almost certainly put the needs of the children first.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: The home - 1 year ago
If your son buys the house at market value then that is one thing. However, if it is just a paper transaction whereby you sign the property over to your son such a transfer can be set aside upon divorce and almost certainly would be upon the application of your wife. The jurisdiction of the divorce courts is not thwarted so easily.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Its over....feedback - 1 year ago
>>Thinking the audio was to my benefit I agreed to playing it... Unfortunately that illustrates exactly how difficult it is to think on your feet on the spur of moment if you are not used to it. That evidence was not admissible and a barrister acting on your behalf would have objected. Instead of objecting - as you were entitled to do - you agreed to allow inadmissible evidence to be inby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: The home - 1 year ago
You are married. Whether the house is in your sole name is irrelevant. It is the matrimonial home. How assets would be divided upon divorce would depend upon circumstances at that time - needs, financial resources etc. It may be relevant what your wife has done with the money she received. If at the time of divorce it was still intact and sitting in a bank account that would be one thing. On theby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Splitting house equity - 1 year ago
Courts do not 'rubber stamp' this type of agreement. The courts exercise their own judgment in the matter and if they think proposed terms of settlement are unfair they will not approve them. As to comparing A with X that is a mug's game. Almost all cases are different in one way or another. Looked at more closely there are almost always differences. For instance, here there areby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Splitting house equity - 1 year ago
>>I know I'd stand no chance if this went to court but my point is surely there's nothing legally stopping my wife from agreeing with me and splitting the equity roughly on the lines I want? Let's say I aim high and say I want an 80:20 split in my favour because I've paid for everything. If she then fires back with a 60:40 counter-offer but we end up compromising down thby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Splitting house equity - 1 year ago
>>I think the house equity should be more than a 50:50 split in my favour as I have always paid my wife's share of the mortgage (as well as all household bills). Do I stand a chance with this argument Absolutely no chance at all for the very good reason that contributions to a marriage are not limited to financial contributions. The law specifically recognises that other contributioby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Its over....feedback - 1 year ago
>>BUT! Hire a barrister if you get to the final hearing. It does not have to be celebrity grade. I was looking into direct access barristers….around of slightly over £1000 for the day. I wish I had! It very likely would had saved me £50-75k I am sorry to say this was suggested to you several times and not only by me. Advocacy is a specialised skill. It is difficult to think on your feetby David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Judicial Reading - 1 year ago
It is when the judge reads the documents. It saves time if the judge has previously read everything. The judge doesn't need any help with reading.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Evidence - 1 year ago
This type of hearing is about being asked questions. Answering questions does not usually give much opportunity for rants. The judge will stop anything irrelevant whick looks like going on too long.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Final Hearing Tomorrow - 1 year ago
As a litigant in person the judge will help you so whatever you do be calm and polite with the judge. Obviously there is a limit to the help a judge can give because he/she must remain impartial as between you and your wife but so far as procedure is concerned the judge will try to assist you.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum
Re: Court Bundle - 1 year ago
>>is it right for previous court orders to be included in the bundle? All court orders which relate to the case MUST be included in the bundle. If no agreement was reached at the FDR the court will have made directions. Those directions are not without prejudice and they never refer to anything which is without prejudice.by David Terry - UK Divorce Forum