Simple advice regarding divorce without clean break clause
Discussion
Hi all. I am shamelessly asking for some straight forward advice from an experienced divorce lawyer.
My partner separated from her ex some years ago. When she left they agreed to split the collateral in the house (joint mort) amount 50/50 and he bought her out.
Some years later she decided to file for divorce, but her ex told her he wasn't paying anything and to leave out the solicitors. She applied to the courts, they sent her the relevant docs and she got the costs paid due to low earning threshold.
Some ten years on she has realised he didn't pay her any:
Maintenance (his salary was much more than hers)
Pension transfer (ex miner)
Savings (never disclosed, but sure he had some)
She knows he owns his own house and is in receipt of a pension.
Now, considering there was never a consent order or clean break to the mortgage is it worth her contacting a solicitor?
If so, what are her chances of recovering anything?
Thanks in advance.
My partner separated from her ex some years ago. When she left they agreed to split the collateral in the house (joint mort) amount 50/50 and he bought her out.
Some years later she decided to file for divorce, but her ex told her he wasn't paying anything and to leave out the solicitors. She applied to the courts, they sent her the relevant docs and she got the costs paid due to low earning threshold.
Some ten years on she has realised he didn't pay her any:
Maintenance (his salary was much more than hers)
Pension transfer (ex miner)
Savings (never disclosed, but sure he had some)
She knows he owns his own house and is in receipt of a pension.
Now, considering there was never a consent order or clean break to the mortgage is it worth her contacting a solicitor?
If so, what are her chances of recovering anything?
Thanks in advance.
IANAL, but it's unusual for the divorce to be granted without the financials being sorted.
As to the other questions, what she may or may not have been 'entitled' to would depend on many factors, including and not limited to the length of marriage, respective Careers and any impact the marriage had upon them, and children.
As to the other questions, what she may or may not have been 'entitled' to would depend on many factors, including and not limited to the length of marriage, respective Careers and any impact the marriage had upon them, and children.
So, they agreed to 50/50 ten years ago. Now she has seen he has got on with his life she wants some of it?
Sure, the courts will (probably) side with her if she wants to grab some of his money: that's the joy of UK law.
Forget it, move on. The court action will be poison and even if she wins some extra cash then, for me at least, it would leave a very sour taste.
Sure, the courts will (probably) side with her if she wants to grab some of his money: that's the joy of UK law.
Forget it, move on. The court action will be poison and even if she wins some extra cash then, for me at least, it would leave a very sour taste.
JumboBeef said:
So, they agreed to 50/50 ten years ago. Now she has seen he has got on with his life she wants some of it?
Sure, the courts will (probably) side with her if she wants to grab some of his money: that's the joy of UK law.
Forget it, move on. The court action will be poison and even if she wins some extra cash then, for me at least, it would leave a very sour taste.
Okay...I will bite.Sure, the courts will (probably) side with her if she wants to grab some of his money: that's the joy of UK law.
Forget it, move on. The court action will be poison and even if she wins some extra cash then, for me at least, it would leave a very sour taste.
How is it 50/50 if she only got half the house and none of the pension, savings etc, etc?
vxr8mate said:
JumboBeef said:
So, they agreed to 50/50 ten years ago. Now she has seen he has got on with his life she wants some of it?
Sure, the courts will (probably) side with her if she wants to grab some of his money: that's the joy of UK law.
Forget it, move on. The court action will be poison and even if she wins some extra cash then, for me at least, it would leave a very sour taste.
Okay...I will bite.Sure, the courts will (probably) side with her if she wants to grab some of his money: that's the joy of UK law.
Forget it, move on. The court action will be poison and even if she wins some extra cash then, for me at least, it would leave a very sour taste.
How is it 50/50 if she only got half the house and none of the pension, savings etc, etc?
I doubt it.
It was ten years ago: move on and forget it (and I'm saying this from a twice divorced man point of view).
JumboBeef said:
vxr8mate said:
JumboBeef said:
So, they agreed to 50/50 ten years ago. Now she has seen he has got on with his life she wants some of it?
Sure, the courts will (probably) side with her if she wants to grab some of his money: that's the joy of UK law.
Forget it, move on. The court action will be poison and even if she wins some extra cash then, for me at least, it would leave a very sour taste.
Okay...I will bite.Sure, the courts will (probably) side with her if she wants to grab some of his money: that's the joy of UK law.
Forget it, move on. The court action will be poison and even if she wins some extra cash then, for me at least, it would leave a very sour taste.
How is it 50/50 if she only got half the house and none of the pension, savings etc, etc?
I doubt it.
It was ten years ago: move on and forget it (and I'm saying this from a twice divorced man point of view).
In this case he potentially preyed her nativity and my understanding is she may have a claim on what's rightfully hers be that months or years later.
If he had thousands stashed in his savings account at the time of the split and decided not to disclose this (as a clean break was never agreed), then why shouldn't she / he (whoever it be) receive what the law seems to say is deserved in a 50/50 split?
vxr8mate said:
Lord, you sound bitter. I have more experience than you (not something I'm proud of), but I always made sure the 'ex' had her fair share.
In this case he potentially preyed her nativity and my understanding is she may have a claim on what's rightfully hers be that months or years later.
If he had thousands stashed in his savings account at the time of the split and decided not to disclose this (as a clean break was never agreed), then why shouldn't she / he (whoever it be) receive what the law seems to say is deserved in a 50/50 split?
You misunderstand me sir.In this case he potentially preyed her nativity and my understanding is she may have a claim on what's rightfully hers be that months or years later.
If he had thousands stashed in his savings account at the time of the split and decided not to disclose this (as a clean break was never agreed), then why shouldn't she / he (whoever it be) receive what the law seems to say is deserved in a 50/50 split?
My ex, when she separated from her ex before she met me, left behind a house and walked away. I am simply repeating what she said to me at the time, when I said she should go for half.
Move on, live your life.
vxr8mate said:
JumboBeef said:
vxr8mate said:
JumboBeef said:
So, they agreed to 50/50 ten years ago. Now she has seen he has got on with his life she wants some of it?
Sure, the courts will (probably) side with her if she wants to grab some of his money: that's the joy of UK law.
Forget it, move on. The court action will be poison and even if she wins some extra cash then, for me at least, it would leave a very sour taste.
Okay...I will bite.Sure, the courts will (probably) side with her if she wants to grab some of his money: that's the joy of UK law.
Forget it, move on. The court action will be poison and even if she wins some extra cash then, for me at least, it would leave a very sour taste.
How is it 50/50 if she only got half the house and none of the pension, savings etc, etc?
I doubt it.
It was ten years ago: move on and forget it (and I'm saying this from a twice divorced man point of view).
In this case he potentially preyed her nativity and my understanding is she may have a claim on what's rightfully hers be that months or years later.
If he had thousands stashed in his savings account at the time of the split and decided not to disclose this (as a clean break was never agreed), then why shouldn't she / he (whoever it be) receive what the law seems to say is deserved in a 50/50 split?
What if he was overdrawn, will she accept half the debt?
vxr8mate said:
Lord, you sound bitter. I have more experience than you (not something I'm proud of), but I always made sure the 'ex' had her fair share.
In this case he potentially preyed her nativity and my understanding is she may have a claim on what's rightfully hers be that months or years later.
If he had thousands stashed in his savings account at the time of the split and decided not to disclose this (as a clean break was never agreed), then why shouldn't she / he (whoever it be) receive what the law seems to say is deserved in a 50/50 split?
Why 50/50? In this case he potentially preyed her nativity and my understanding is she may have a claim on what's rightfully hers be that months or years later.
If he had thousands stashed in his savings account at the time of the split and decided not to disclose this (as a clean break was never agreed), then why shouldn't she / he (whoever it be) receive what the law seems to say is deserved in a 50/50 split?
It rarely is, and depends on many things, as I mentioned above.
If, for instance, she met and married him when he already had a house, and she had a frock and a pack of crisps, and then left him after 6 months, then half a house is a right result.
If, however, the house was hers, she worked to put him through miner school, bore several children, did not go back to work because she supported his career and they were married for 25 years, then her position would be somewhat different.
Impossible to comment without some frame of reference.
JumboBeef said:
vxr8mate said:
JumboBeef said:
So, they agreed to 50/50 ten years ago. Now she has seen he has got on with his life she wants some of it?
Sure, the courts will (probably) side with her if she wants to grab some of his money: that's the joy of UK law.
Forget it, move on. The court action will be poison and even if she wins some extra cash then, for me at least, it would leave a very sour taste.
Okay...I will bite.Sure, the courts will (probably) side with her if she wants to grab some of his money: that's the joy of UK law.
Forget it, move on. The court action will be poison and even if she wins some extra cash then, for me at least, it would leave a very sour taste.
How is it 50/50 if she only got half the house and none of the pension, savings etc, etc?
I doubt it.
It was ten years ago: move on and forget it (and I'm saying this from a twice divorced man point of view).
It sounds like the OP's OH doesnt do anything much (other than look to screw over the Ex), so I have some queries...
Considering she wants his head on a spike and all his money, how much exactly did she contribute to the House all those years ago that she got 50% of the equity out of?
Did she actually give anything or just want 50% due to the marriage?
Sounds like the Ex paid her off with the house, now they are divorced and that should be it.
Tell me OP, you guys having money issues? You looking for a deposit on a house? How did the conversation come up that 10 years later you thought that the EX owes her again?
Just seems strange that she now wants another piece of the pie, the Ex doesnt run Ecotricity does he?
To go back for something ten years later on the suspicion there may have been more is not a healthy mindset to have. This sounds desperate and bitter and like you've got financial problems of your own and seeking to gain reward through something which has nothing to do with you.
Get on with your lives and leave the ex alone.
Get on with your lives and leave the ex alone.
Justayellowbadge said:
vxr8mate said:
Lord, you sound bitter. I have more experience than you (not something I'm proud of), but I always made sure the 'ex' had her fair share.
In this case he potentially preyed her nativity and my understanding is she may have a claim on what's rightfully hers be that months or years later.
If he had thousands stashed in his savings account at the time of the split and decided not to disclose this (as a clean break was never agreed), then why shouldn't she / he (whoever it be) receive what the law seems to say is deserved in a 50/50 split?
Why 50/50? In this case he potentially preyed her nativity and my understanding is she may have a claim on what's rightfully hers be that months or years later.
If he had thousands stashed in his savings account at the time of the split and decided not to disclose this (as a clean break was never agreed), then why shouldn't she / he (whoever it be) receive what the law seems to say is deserved in a 50/50 split?
It rarely is, and depends on many things, as I mentioned above.
If, for instance, she met and married him when he already had a house, and she had a frock and a pack of crisps, and then left him after 6 months, then half a house is a right result.
If, however, the house was hers, she worked to put him through miner school, bore several children, did not go back to work because she supported his career and they were married for 25 years, then her position would be somewhat different.
Impossible to comment without some frame of reference.
They were married for about 10 years and no kids.
She has never remarried and neither applied for consent order or clean break.
They took on a joint mortgage that he took on after the split, for which he paid her half the collateral.
He earned the money to pay the bills and she kept the house clean, washed his smalls and ironed his shirts etc.
I know (from experience) a pension sharing order would have been awarded in her favour (amount to be agreed dependent upon time spent married, agreed) but she wasn't aware of this at the time. She is confident he also had an amount of savings in a separate account that she would have been entitled to, but was persuaded not to involve solicitors.
All I am asking is if it's worth her seeking the advice of a solicitor for legal representation rather than enter in to a debate about the morals of such cases especially when neither of us have all the relevant facts to hand.
vxr8mate said:
All I am asking is if it's worth her seeking the advice of a solicitor for legal representation rather than enter in to a debate about the morals of such cases especially when neither of us have all the relevant facts to hand.
Using only my knowledge:-On the face of what you have posted it would be worth her going to see a Family Law Solicitor to discuss this with fully as there may well be a potential claim here, although no one can give you "Yes, do it!" advice based upon what has been posted. Only full and frank disclosure to someone who knows the right questions to ask will give you a definitive answer.
On a personal note I do not know any of the parties involved or the back stories. That said my default position on people revisiting financial agreements on separation many years after the event is that I could only do so personally if I found I had been heavily duped and was in need. Both would have to be in existence. I know that when I split I was about 5 figures down on what I was entitled to but I can look myself in the eye when I shave in the morning, I am not sure the ex can when she puts her makeup on.
vxr8mate said:
Justayellowbadge said:
vxr8mate said:
Lord, you sound bitter. I have more experience than you (not something I'm proud of), but I always made sure the 'ex' had her fair share.
In this case he potentially preyed her nativity and my understanding is she may have a claim on what's rightfully hers be that months or years later.
If he had thousands stashed in his savings account at the time of the split and decided not to disclose this (as a clean break was never agreed), then why shouldn't she / he (whoever it be) receive what the law seems to say is deserved in a 50/50 split?
Why 50/50? In this case he potentially preyed her nativity and my understanding is she may have a claim on what's rightfully hers be that months or years later.
If he had thousands stashed in his savings account at the time of the split and decided not to disclose this (as a clean break was never agreed), then why shouldn't she / he (whoever it be) receive what the law seems to say is deserved in a 50/50 split?
It rarely is, and depends on many things, as I mentioned above.
If, for instance, she met and married him when he already had a house, and she had a frock and a pack of crisps, and then left him after 6 months, then half a house is a right result.
If, however, the house was hers, she worked to put him through miner school, bore several children, did not go back to work because she supported his career and they were married for 25 years, then her position would be somewhat different.
Impossible to comment without some frame of reference.
They were married for about 10 years and no kids.
She has never remarried and neither applied for consent order or clean break.
They took on a joint mortgage that he took on after the split, for which he paid her half the collateral.
He earned the money to pay the bills and she kept the house clean, washed his smalls and ironed his shirts etc.
I know (from experience) a pension sharing order would have been awarded in her favour (amount to be agreed dependent upon time spent married, agreed) but she wasn't aware of this at the time. She is confident he also had an amount of savings in a separate account that she would have been entitled to, but was persuaded not to involve solicitors.
All I am asking is if it's worth her seeking the advice of a solicitor for legal representation rather than enter in to a debate about the morals of such cases especially when neither of us have all the relevant facts to hand.
What did she bring into the relationship monetary wise?
At the moment you have wrote that the marriage was 10 years, no kids, he earned everything and she kept the house clean, etc.
On the divorce he bought her out of the house and gave her 50% of the equity, that she put nothing more than keeping clean into it.
Sounds like on the face of it she got a hell of a lot better deal in the 10 years, especially with no kids to bring up and look after.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff