Marriage breakdown

[LoonR1]

flemke said:

LoonR1 said:

flemke said:

The OP may very well care!

If there were something going on behind his back, it would be unlikely (although not impossible) that the court would care, but that would be a different question.

Seriously? You're going to post that. How many times in a simple straightforward divorce has a court asked about the cause of divorce when dividing assets?

The OP should get proper legal advice and take it from there, all he'll get on here is mysoginistic crap, such as snakes with tits and other garbage.

What is your problem with what I wrote?

My problem is that a court does NOT care who was at fault for the divorce when dividing the assets. Your comment is that it's "unlikely, although not impossible", so let's have an example in a straightforward marriage breakdown like this. If you don't provide it then you're sending the OP off on a wild unnecessary goose chase. Too many people seem to think that if their wife cheats on them, that this means they can walk away without any need for financial settlement. That simply will not happen.

The OP may find out that his wife has been cheating. If she has, then he'll have a world of emotional turmoil to deal with, but whether she has or hasn't makes zero difference to what the financial settlement will be.

With no kids, the settlement will look at what was brought to the marriage and what was contributed to during it. There will also be a strong eye to it being a short marriage. The prior 4 years when unmarried are not relevant as, again, there are no kids to consider.

[flemke]

LoonR1 said:

flemke said:

LoonR1 said:

flemke said:

The OP may very well care!

If there were something going on behind his back, it would be unlikely (although not impossible) that the court would care, but that would be a different question.

Seriously? You're going to post that. How many times in a simple straightforward divorce has a court asked about the cause of divorce when dividing assets?

The OP should get proper legal advice and take it from there, all he'll get on here is mysoginistic crap, such as snakes with tits and other garbage.

What is your problem with what I wrote?

My problem is that a court does NOT care who was at fault for the divorce when dividing the assets. Your comment is that it's "unlikely, although not impossible", so let's have an example in a straightforward marriage breakdown like this. If you don't provide it then you're sending the OP off on a wild unnecessary goose chase. Too many people seem to think that if their wife cheats on them, that this means they can walk away without any need for financial settlement. That simply will not happen.

The OP may find out that his wife has been cheating. If she has, then he'll have a world of emotional turmoil to deal with, but whether she has or hasn't makes zero difference to what the financial settlement will be.

With no kids, the settlement will look at what was brought to the marriage and what was contributed to during it. There will also be a strong eye to it being a short marriage. The prior 4 years when unmarried are not relevant as, again, there are no kids to consider.

The whole point is that, unless the OP has satisfied himself that he knows the whole story, he cannot be certain that there were no "Conduct" issues.

I did not say that he ought to go down that route. The chances are high that to go down that route would be both fruitless and wasteful. Hence my use of "unlikely".

Nonetheless, the fact is that there have been cases when the conduct of one spouse was shown to be sufficiently bad that, as I think the Marital Act of '73 puts it, "it would be inequitable for the court not to take it into account" when determining the Financial Settlement. Hence my use of "not impossible".

[LoonR1]

flemke said:

The whole point is that, unless the OP has satisfied himself that he knows the whole story, he cannot be certain that there were no "Conduct" issues.

I did not say that he ought to go down that route. The chances are high that to go down that route would be both fruitless and wasteful. Hence my use of "unlikely".

Nonetheless, the fact is that there have been cases when the conduct of one spouse was shown to be sufficiently bad that, as I think the Marital Act of '73 puts it, "it would be inequitable for the court not to take it into account" when determining the Financial Settlement. Hence my use of "possible".

I've got a lot of experience of divorce, two of my own to start with and a girlfriend who specialises in marital matters at her firm. She laughed at the idea of a straightforaward case ever having had anything like what you're suggesting happen.

My Mum was having an affair when my parents divorced. There was no secret amd it made zero difference to the financial outcome of that.

Your comments are theoretical at best, I asked for some examples amd you gave me a theoretical response. Let's see these examples for a straightforward* marriage breakdown.


* this is defined as a normal bloke, not some multi-billionaire arguing in UK courts despite never having lived here.

[flemke]

LoonR1 said:

flemke said:

The whole point is that, unless the OP has satisfied himself that he knows the whole story, he cannot be certain that there were no "Conduct" issues.

I did not say that he ought to go down that route. The chances are high that to go down that route would be both fruitless and wasteful. Hence my use of "unlikely".

Nonetheless, the fact is that there have been cases when the conduct of one spouse was shown to be sufficiently bad that, as I think the Marital Act of '73 puts it, "it would be inequitable for the court not to take it into account" when determining the Financial Settlement. Hence my use of "possible".

I've got a lot of experience of divorce, two of my own to start with and a girlfriend who specialises in marital matters at her firm. She laughed at the idea of a straightforaward case ever having had anything like what you're suggesting happen.

My Mum was having an affair when my parents divorced. There was no secret amd it made zero difference to the financial outcome of that.

Your comments are theoretical at best, I asked for some examples amd you gave me a theoretical response. Let's see these examples for a straightforward* marriage breakdown.


* this is defined as a normal bloke, not some multi-billionaire arguing in UK courts despite never having lived here.

Except that we don't know for certain that this is a "straightforward case". It might appear to be, but that question could not have been definitively answered.

I did not say that what some might call a "simple" adultery case would be enough to interest the court. As you say, it would not be. Some of us might think such enforced ignorance to be unfair, but that is the way it is in modern England and Wales.

That does not mean that no examples of egregious behaviour would interest the court. The obligation of the court to hear "Conduct" cases was created by statute more than 40 years ago.

Ask your girlfriend if she is familiar with Justice Sir Philip Moor and retired Justice Sir Paul Coleridge.

[LoonR1]

flemke said:

Except that we don't know for certain that this is a "straightforward case". It might appear to be, but that question could not have been definitively answered.

I did not say that what some might call a "simple" adultery case would be enough to interest the court. As you say, it would not be. Some of us might think such enforced ignorance to be unfair, but that is the way it is in modern England and Wales.

That does not mean that no examples of egregious behaviour would interest the court. The obligation of the court to hear "Conduct" cases was created by statute more than 40 years ago.

Ask your girlfriend if she is familiar with Justice Sir Philip Moor and retired Justice Sir Paul Coleridge.

Amd still you fail to provide any examples. Of course this is straightforward. It's a short marriage between two people with no major assets, that might not be explicit, but the reference to the house amd that being the centre of the discussion would suggest they're not billionaires.

We're taking this way off topic. The OP should seek proper advice. Maybe when he has, he'll come back and let us know which of us has the greater grasp of reality. I'm not asking anyone about Knights of the Realm, as they are not normal members of the public. You are quite tiresome with your constant references to these types of people on this and other threads. Most people on here are normal Clapham omnibus types, we don't live in your highfalutin world of peers and billionaires, hence why your advice is rarely of use to us.

[flemke]

LoonR1 said:

flemke said:

Except that we don't know for certain that this is a "straightforward case". It might appear to be, but that question could not have been definitively answered.

I did not say that what some might call a "simple" adultery case would be enough to interest the court. As you say, it would not be. Some of us might think such enforced ignorance to be unfair, but that is the way it is in modern England and Wales.

That does not mean that no examples of egregious behaviour would interest the court. The obligation of the court to hear "Conduct" cases was created by statute more than 40 years ago.

Ask your girlfriend if she is familiar with Justice Sir Philip Moor and retired Justice Sir Paul Coleridge.

Amd still you fail to provide any examples. Of course this is straightforward. It's a short marriage between two people with no major assets, that might not be explicit, but the reference to the house amd that being the centre of the discussion would suggest they're not billionaires.

We're taking this way off topic. The OP should seek proper advice. Maybe when he has, he'll come back and let us know which of us has the greater grasp of reality. I'm not asking anyone about Knights of the Realm, as they are not normal members of the public. You are quite tiresome with your constant references to these types of people on this and other threads. Most people on here are normal Clapham omnibus types, we don't live in your highfalutin world of peers and billionaires, hence why your advice is rarely of use to us.

The reason that I brought up the names of those two Justices has nothing to do with a "highfalutin world of peers and billionaires". It has nothing to do with their being "Sirs", which is a title that comes automatically with the job.
Those men are/were Judges in the Family Division of the High Court. There may be a reason why I know that they specifically have been involved with "Conduct" cases. That doesn't mean that I am going to go into detail here in order to placate you.

I agree with you that the OP would probably benefit from professional advice. I agree, as I am now asserting for the third time on this thread, that it is unlikely (indeed very unlikely) that his would be a conduct case.

Without knowing the details, however, it could not be said for certain that his is not an exceptional case. A previous poster suggested that the OP might want to investigate what his wife had been up to. A couple of subsequent posters, with the best of intentions, said that that was likely to be a futile if not counter-productive endeavour, as the court has no interest in details of morality. I merely tried to point out that there have been rare cases when the court was interested in the details, and the details affected the Settlement. That is fact.


Perhaps you are right, that my advice is "rarely of use" to other PHers.

I may do a poor job of it, but at least I try sincerely to add to discussions in a positive way.

That would be in contrast to one or two PH members here. The primary modus operandi of those one or two members appears to be stalking other posters, carping at every opportunity, and pissing on the genuine attempts of others to contribute because they hope that stalking, carping and pissing will make them seem clever.

[LoonR1]

flemke said:

The reason that I brought up the names of those two Justices has nothing to do with a "highfalutin world of peers and billionaires". It has nothing to do with their being "Sirs", which is a title that comes automatically with the job.
Those men are/were Judges in the Family Division of the High Court. There may be a reason why I know that they specifically have been involved with "Conduct" cases. That doesn't mean that I am going to go into detail here in order to placate you.

I agree with you that the OP would probably benefit from professional advice. I agree, as I am now asserting for the third time on this thread, that it is unlikely (indeed very unlikely) that his would be a conduct case.

Without knowing the details, however, it could not be said for certain that his is not an exceptional case. A previous poster suggested that the OP might want to investigate what his wife had been up to. A couple of subsequent posters, with the best of intentions, said that that was likely to be a futile if not counter-productive endeavour, as the court has no interest in details of morality. I merely tried to point out that there have been rare cases when the court was interested in the details, and the details affected the Settlement. That is fact.


Perhaps you are right, that my advice is "rarely of use" to other PHers.

I may do a poor job of it, but at least I try sincerely to add to discussions in a positive way.

That would be in contrast to one or two PH members here. The primary modus operandi of those one or two members appears to be stalking other posters, carping at every opportunity, and pissing on the genuine attempts of others to contribute because they hope that stalking, carping and pissing will make them seem clever.

Let's agree to disagree.

For info, I don't stalk you (if that was aimed at me), I point out to many on here when they go off on unnecessary and overly detailed tangents, that either offer false hope, or just adds no real world value to a question that was asked. There are a couple of comments around insurance on other current threads where I've done the same.

I have no doubt that there are one or two cases where conduct was relevant to the outcome, but these will be such a minority as to offer nothing of value to the OP. Fame and fortune can drive results that normal people won't get.

I'm pretty certain that it's safer to assume the OP is a normal Joe Bloggs than to pretend that he may be a really special case. The fact he's asking on here / referencing the house suggests he's not one of the Super Rich.

[PurpleMoonlight]

lee_fr200 said:

My old man went through something similar a couple of years ago turned out she was cheating!


Anyways he didn't lose his house or have to divide his assets 50:50 as they hadn't been married 10yrs
While it was amicable he got her to sign lots of rental paperwork (basically she didn't read it) and this allowed her nothing at all

Although he did tell the court that he paid her 1st month rent and her bond and bought furniture and built it which the courts thought was acceptable considering she played away!

I don't believe that for a second.

[JonV8V]

Go on F - give us a clue to what might make it a 'conduct' case.

Drugs?
Nazi sex parties?
Being a paedophile?
Being caught doing 79mph on a motorway?

[9mm]

LoonR1 said:

flemke said:

The reason that I brought up the names of those two Justices has nothing to do with a "highfalutin world of peers and billionaires". It has nothing to do with their being "Sirs", which is a title that comes automatically with the job.
Those men are/were Judges in the Family Division of the High Court. There may be a reason why I know that they specifically have been involved with "Conduct" cases. That doesn't mean that I am going to go into detail here in order to placate you.

I agree with you that the OP would probably benefit from professional advice. I agree, as I am now asserting for the third time on this thread, that it is unlikely (indeed very unlikely) that his would be a conduct case.

Without knowing the details, however, it could not be said for certain that his is not an exceptional case. A previous poster suggested that the OP might want to investigate what his wife had been up to. A couple of subsequent posters, with the best of intentions, said that that was likely to be a futile if not counter-productive endeavour, as the court has no interest in details of morality. I merely tried to point out that there have been rare cases when the court was interested in the details, and the details affected the Settlement. That is fact.


Perhaps you are right, that my advice is "rarely of use" to other PHers.

I may do a poor job of it, but at least I try sincerely to add to discussions in a positive way.

That would be in contrast to one or two PH members here. The primary modus operandi of those one or two members appears to be stalking other posters, carping at every opportunity, and pissing on the genuine attempts of others to contribute because they hope that stalking, carping and pissing will make them seem clever.

Let's agree to disagree.

For info, I don't stalk you (if that was aimed at me), I point out to many on here when they go off on unnecessary and overly detailed tangents, that either offer false hope, or just adds no real world value to a question that was asked. There are a couple of comments around insurance on other current threads where I've done the same.

I have no doubt that there are one or two cases where conduct was relevant to the outcome, but these will be such a minority as to offer nothing of value to the OP. Fame and fortune can drive results that normal people won't get.

I'm pretty certain that it's safer to assume the OP is a normal Joe Bloggs than to pretend that he may be a really special case. The fact he's asking on here / referencing the house suggests he's not one of the Super Rich.

Anything is possible but on the facts known it's extremely unlikely that any judge is going to be remotely interested in conduct issues.

However, knowledge is often useful and it may be that the op may be able to use it as some form of psychological leverage. Guilt can be a useful lever but it doesn't tend to last so may need to be exploited early.

[berlintaxi]

9mm said:

However, knowledge is often useful and it may be that the op may be able to use it as some form of psychological leverage. Guilt can be a useful lever but it doesn't tend to last so may need to be exploited early.

You sound a right charmer.

[sugerbear]

Work out what your property was worth when you purchased it and what it is now worth and offer her half. I think that is fair given that she has been contributing towards the mortgage even if you call it rent.

Happy to be shot down in flames but that seems a reasonable way to escape quickly and reasonably.

[paintman]

flemke said:

The reason that I brought up the names of those two Justices has nothing to do with a "highfalutin world of peers and billionaires". It has nothing to do with their being "Sirs", which is a title that comes automatically with the job.
Those men are/were Judges in the Family Division of the High Court. There may be a reason why I know that they specifically have been involved with "Conduct" cases. That doesn't mean that I am going to go into detail here in order to placate you.

I agree with you that the OP would probably benefit from professional advice. I agree, as I am now asserting for the third time on this thread, that it is unlikely (indeed very unlikely) that his would be a conduct case.

Then why bother even mentioning them if you have 'specialised knowledge' that may be relevant that you aren't prepared to share? No help to the OP or anyone else.

[9mm]

berlintaxi said:

9mm said:

However, knowledge is often useful and it may be that the op may be able to use it as some form of psychological leverage. Guilt can be a useful lever but it doesn't tend to last so may need to be exploited early.

You sound a right charmer.

I'm trying to assist the OP.

What's your agenda?

[mikees]

Is there a way to avoid this situation arising? Eg existing house and assets, no contribution to house. Marry then divorce, half goes to wife.

Pre nups pointless in UK? Deed of trust? 2/3rds of my assets are lent to me by a trust which I repay on death. Safe, as not my asset?

[LoonR1]

mikees said:

Is there a way to avoid this situation arising? Eg existing house and assets, no contribution to house. Marry then divorce, half goes to wife.

Pre nups pointless in UK? Deed of trust? 2/3rds of my assets are lent to me by a trust which I repay on death. Safe, as not my asset?

Half doesn't to the wife at all. No idea why you make that assumption.

Here's an anecdote, that may or may not still hold true. My first marriage was short (3 years), we lived together for the marriage and five years prior to that in a house that I owned in my sole name that I bought before met my then wife, so similar to the OP. She had a snmall claim on the increase in value of the house during our marriage only (it wasn't a 50% claim either).

Whatever your set up it becomes irrelevant if you have kids. They take precedence in all financial aspects of a divorce amd rightly so IMO.

[lee_fr200]

PurpleMoonlight said:

lee_fr200 said:

My old man went through something similar a couple of years ago turned out she was cheating!


Anyways he didn't lose his house or have to divide his assets 50:50 as they hadn't been married 10yrs
While it was amicable he got her to sign lots of rental paperwork (basically she didn't read it) and this allowed her nothing at all

Although he did tell the court that he paid her 1st month rent and her bond and bought furniture and built it which the courts thought was acceptable considering she played away!

I don't believe that for a second.

Whether you believe it or not it happened lol! Her solicitor turned up in court the paperwork she signed unknowingly was a clean break order my dads barrister won and dad didn't pay a bean

[LoonR1]

lee_fr200 said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

lee_fr200 said:

My old man went through something similar a couple of years ago turned out she was cheating!


Anyways he didn't lose his house or have to divide his assets 50:50 as they hadn't been married 10yrs
While it was amicable he got her to sign lots of rental paperwork (basically she didn't read it) and this allowed her nothing at all

Although he did tell the court that he paid her 1st month rent and her bond and bought furniture and built it which the courts thought was acceptable considering she played away!

I don't believe that for a second.

Whether you believe it or not it happened lol! Her solicitor turned up in court the paperwork she signed unknowingly was a clean break order my dads barrister won and dad didn't pay a bean

Bullst, complete and utter bullst. It might be true that he told you that to save face, but what he's claiming happened, didn't.

[LoonR1]

lee_fr200 said:

LoonR1 said:

lee_fr200 said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

lee_fr200 said:

My old man went through something similar a couple of years ago turned out she was cheating!


Anyways he didn't lose his house or have to divide his assets 50:50 as they hadn't been married 10yrs
While it was amicable he got her to sign lots of rental paperwork (basically she didn't read it) and this allowed her nothing at all

Although he did tell the court that he paid her 1st month rent and her bond and bought furniture and built it which the courts thought was acceptable considering she played away!

I don't believe that for a second.

Whether you believe it or not it happened lol! Her solicitor turned up in court the paperwork she signed unknowingly was a clean break order my dads barrister won and dad didn't pay a bean

Bullst, complete and utter bullst. It might be true that he told you that to save face, but what he's claiming happened, didn't.

Not bullst at all lol I was present as I was one of 2 witnesses that saw her sign it and appeared as well as her friend who witnessed it, her solicitor was arguing for a share of my dads business which needs specific licences which only he had and she wanted the house sold and divided to which the paperwork she signed thought this would happen, his barrister then informed her after we had been asked if we witnessed the signing of it that it was a clean break order saying she would walk away from the marriage with nothing and because she had already said she signed it to the room it looked like she was then arguing a previous agreement and they sided with my dad! How do I also know this! My dad still lives in the house and he also has his business and I guarantee you not a single penny was given I have no reason to lie as it didn't effect me

You keep living in your dream world. I'm pretty certain any practising legal type on here will explain exactly why what you're claiming is a load of garbage.

[LoonR1]

lee_fr200 said:

Unless you were there I'm afraid you can't comment I was merely telling the op what happened with my father whether you believe it or not is up to you! Obviously there was a lot of in depth stuff that happened

A business that is run by licence can't be run by someone who isn't on that licence and what my father did was set up another company and transferred the assets now he did this because even though it was amicable she froze the business bank account that her name was on and the joint account effectively shutting the business down over night as it couldn't pay its bills there was very little in the account anyway as he paid off some of his business loan (in his name) with the money before it was frozen so yeah he set up a new business over night

Next he Asked her to sign this paperwork he got from the solicitor and at that time she didn't have a solicitor so it was sent to her direct she signed it believing whatever without reading it I was there and so was her friend then she went and got a crap solicitor my dads solicitor got him a barrister

Now for the duration of the hearings she never turned up she only turned up to the last one to which she was asked if she had signed this paperwork she said yes (her solicitor didn't even know about it) we were then asked if we witnessed it we both said yes! The barrister then informed that the contents was a clean break order that because she shut the business down there was no business to divide and as my dad had not paid the mortgage for 6 months (he did this to build debt) to the tune of 1900 a month x6 and that the house needed other repairs and that the 100k deposit he put down on the house originally came from his other business that is joint owned between him and my mum (his 1st wife) that, that loan had also been called in and because of this she had agreed to walk away but release her from the debt of the mortgage and the debt of half the deposit the court ruled in my dads favour the loan was never called in obviously and he paid the mortgage arrears off straight away but yeah it was complicated but how he did it worked for him

It's still a load of garbage. It's the sort of story that someone comes up with to save face. You can't rely on randomly producing forms in court that the other side have no knowledge of. Putting that to one side you also can't then say "hahaha, I tricked you into signing these and you signed your rights away"

Just stop digging.