Divorce & Finances
Discussion
Sadly no gym monkey involved here - well not that i know of!!
The stowe firm is well thought of, and first 30 min consultation is free, after that... er.. £300 an hour! But if it means i save £30k, ill pay a couple of £k as needed!
Actually not heard from her since Wed ... and not planning to mention anything til she asks if i have sought advice, then ill tell!
Common theme seems to be woman puts £little in, has child and even though the father WANTS 50% custody of the child, the court sides with the mother (not saying she is a bad mother btw!) and gives her a s
t load of money for no real reason!!
Glad to see that im not the only one who is going/had gone through this with similar issues.
The stowe firm is well thought of, and first 30 min consultation is free, after that... er.. £300 an hour! But if it means i save £30k, ill pay a couple of £k as needed!
Actually not heard from her since Wed ... and not planning to mention anything til she asks if i have sought advice, then ill tell!
Common theme seems to be woman puts £little in, has child and even though the father WANTS 50% custody of the child, the court sides with the mother (not saying she is a bad mother btw!) and gives her a s
t load of money for no real reason!!Glad to see that im not the only one who is going/had gone through this with similar issues.
Ursicles.... nail on head. Seems a very common pattern. My ex seemed to think she was entitled to as much as she wanted. House, car, money, anything she thought she could demand. It didn't register in her tiny brain that most people work for things rather than just sitting back and thinking they deserve them. That the courts support this kind of thing is ridiculous.
spookly said:
My ex seemed to think she was entitled to as much as she wanted. House, car, money, anything she thought she could demand. It didn't register in her tiny brain that most people work for things rather than just sitting back and thinking they deserve them.
Just curious, but was she always like that? If she was, then, like... Surely you saw it coming?Mrs aaz01 has a stronger work ethic than me and earns more (to be fair also spends more!) but if you're marrying someone that expects to just be given everything... That seems... risky. How do you know they'll cope if you ever lose your ability to earn the same income?
Ursicles said:
Sadly no gym monkey involved here - well not that i know of!!
The stowe firm is well thought of, and first 30 min consultation is free, after that... er.. £300 an hour! But if it means i save £30k, ill pay a couple of £k as needed!
Actually not heard from her since Wed ... and not planning to mention anything til she asks if i have sought advice, then ill tell!
Common theme seems to be woman puts £little in, has child and even though the father WANTS 50% custody of the child, the court sides with the mother (not saying she is a bad mother btw!) and gives her a st load of money for no real reason!!
Glad to see that im not the only one who is going/had gone through this with similar issues.
i wish you luck and a good result. expect the £ to add up very quickly - £300/hr. for court days - you're paying a barrister on top of that (and the solicitor sits there taking notes at their £300/hr - some days i was there 8 hours) and they are £1k-£1.5k per day in court. we 'needed' a few court dates to settle finances and a few more for the custody aspect. i found each day in court was costing £4-5k. The stowe firm is well thought of, and first 30 min consultation is free, after that... er.. £300 an hour! But if it means i save £30k, ill pay a couple of £k as needed!
Actually not heard from her since Wed ... and not planning to mention anything til she asks if i have sought advice, then ill tell!
Common theme seems to be woman puts £little in, has child and even though the father WANTS 50% custody of the child, the court sides with the mother (not saying she is a bad mother btw!) and gives her a s
t load of money for no real reason!!Glad to see that im not the only one who is going/had gone through this with similar issues.
my ex got the house. there was *only* around 100k equity in it - but she couldn't raise the 50k now (and she's run up £100k debt since i left her 2 years ago), so she kindly agreed to take a slightly smaller chunk of my pension. i *only* have to pay CSA calculated child maintenance and 50% of pvt school fees. she was going for a lot more - spousal maintenance etc, but thankfully she's in the same profession as me, so has the same earning ability.also thankfully - we agreed that she's responsible for her debts - she was asking me to pay half, yet at the same time, expected the bit she'd managed to take off the mortgage, to all go to her.
ETA - it's a f
king joke. the fact i worked my balls off and paid much more than her for the first 4-5 years, to reduce the mortgage didn't mean squat. but the fact i had to reduce my contributions to try and save enough to pay tax - well her side jumped all over that like the proverbial tramp on chips. oh - and solicitors know how to charge - every single thing - literally, for forwarding an e-mail to me that was sent to them - that's £15-£20.
gonna have to stop now. am trying to put it behind me and move on with my life and ignore the apparent injustice - or else i'll end up as bitter, twisted and spiteful as she is. i'd rather kiss the money goodbye (not like there's anything else i can do
) as light-heartedly as possible and enjoy the rest of my life. and typing all this out is making me 
again 
so all the best
Edited by SpydieNut on Friday 27th May 11:04
PurpleMoonlight said:
Ursicles said:
Erm... rich id guess is a 50bed nursing home in richmond, an 8 bed house in richmond and a 5 bed house in richmond and a few houses abroad - he can afford to go large at Maccy D shall we say
Ive agreed to pay half my little boys' school fee - he def isnt going to miss out on anything as thats the main priority for us both. He does live with her, but lives with me for 50% of the time as well - which is why i sold the flat for a house so he could do that.
Were married for 9 yrs.
If there is sufficient wealth to provide for both parties needs a 50:50 split is more likely.Ive agreed to pay half my little boys' school fee - he def isnt going to miss out on anything as thats the main priority for us both. He does live with her, but lives with me for 50% of the time as well - which is why i sold the flat for a house so he could do that.
Were married for 9 yrs.
If there are children involved the courts will only look at what is right for them. They would first consider what the family home is like and whether it is suitable for the wife and child. I suspect that the home is perfectly fine. That will be the minimum she gets and you may have to continue to pay for it until the child is out of full time education.
Sorry to say this but the 60 - 70% may well be an under-estimation. The wealth of the father is not a consideration, nor should it be. He is not party to the marriage nor, since she is an adult, for his daughter's income. If he chooses to help then so be it but the courts are unlikely to award that her father has anything to do with providing income to his daughter!
The above is based entirely on personal experience. Jus'sayin!
Ursicles said:
Yep - her dad pays his fees currently, but she said that he is going to help her pay for her new place in future, so we (as in me and her) are going to have to go halves on his school fees.
To be fair to him, he is incredibly bright and did bloody well to get into Dulwich, so happy to pay for him to give him a great start in life.
DC? Great school! Pueri Alleynienses 'n' all that!To be fair to him, he is incredibly bright and did bloody well to get into Dulwich, so happy to pay for him to give him a great start in life.
May be fitting:
Logical Reasons Why Some Men Have Dogs And Not Wives:
1. The later you are, the more
Excited your dog is to see you.
2. Dogs don't notice if you call them
By another dog's name.
3.. Dogs like it if you leave lots
Of things on the floor.
4. Dogs' parents never visit.
5. Dogs agree that you have to raise your voice to get your point across.
6. You never have to wait for a dog; they're ready to go, instantly, 24 hours a day.
7. Dogs find you amusing when you're pissed.
8. Dogs like to go hunting and fishing.
9. Dogs won't wake you up at night to ask: "If I died, would you get another dog?"
10. If a dog has babies, you can put an ad in the paper and sell 'em.
11. When you drop a silent one, dogs don't run around frantically with room spray.
13. Dogs never tell you to stop scratching your balls. Instead, they sit pondering why you don't lick 'em.
14. Dogs will let you put a studded collar on, without calling you a pervert.
15. If a dog smells another dog on you, it won't kick you in the crotch; it just finds it interesting.
And last, but not least:
16. If a dog runs off and leaves you, it won't take half your stuff.
To verify these statements: Lock your wife and your dog in the garage for an hour.
Then open the door, and observe who's happy to see you!
Logical Reasons Why Some Men Have Dogs And Not Wives:
1. The later you are, the more
Excited your dog is to see you.
2. Dogs don't notice if you call them
By another dog's name.
3.. Dogs like it if you leave lots
Of things on the floor.
4. Dogs' parents never visit.
5. Dogs agree that you have to raise your voice to get your point across.
6. You never have to wait for a dog; they're ready to go, instantly, 24 hours a day.
7. Dogs find you amusing when you're pissed.
8. Dogs like to go hunting and fishing.
9. Dogs won't wake you up at night to ask: "If I died, would you get another dog?"
10. If a dog has babies, you can put an ad in the paper and sell 'em.
11. When you drop a silent one, dogs don't run around frantically with room spray.
13. Dogs never tell you to stop scratching your balls. Instead, they sit pondering why you don't lick 'em.
14. Dogs will let you put a studded collar on, without calling you a pervert.
15. If a dog smells another dog on you, it won't kick you in the crotch; it just finds it interesting.
And last, but not least:
16. If a dog runs off and leaves you, it won't take half your stuff.
To verify these statements: Lock your wife and your dog in the garage for an hour.
Then open the door, and observe who's happy to see you!
SpydieNut said:
Trabi601 said:
bad company said:
Thinking back I've slept with a few dogs tho they only had 2 legs.
I've never been to bed with an ugly woman, but I've woken up with one or two.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7PE46RqsQo
The general view taken by the court is that the Wife is spending her time at home looking after Junior/s whilst your working. Her input to the financial success of the family is the maintaining of home for you, your child/ren and yourself. The court assumes that you would not be capable of earning what you do, without her support....Even if that support is spent in the shops/on her back or dining with the ladies....
As to 60%/40%. That's the DEFAULT split for a mother/father as the mother normally has the child because you will be out earning her maintenance.... sorry a living! You might be able to get 50%/50% but that might be tricky without her agreeing.
Did you get an agreement made when you separated? That can put a stop to her claim on anything you earn (ie a new business) after separation, otherwise if you start a business and make a million or win the lottery, she can tuck into that as well until the divorce comes through. You also need to get a clean-break as well or she can go back to the courts AFTER a divorce for more, if for example you had a highly successful business.
Oh and ITS ALL STACKED IN THE WIFE'S FAVOR, no matter what she's done. And if you fooled around it's your own fault, she'll take you for all you've got.
i do believe, although I might be wrong, that assets obtained before marriage are not included in a settlement??
As to 60%/40%. That's the DEFAULT split for a mother/father as the mother normally has the child because you will be out earning her maintenance.... sorry a living! You might be able to get 50%/50% but that might be tricky without her agreeing.
Did you get an agreement made when you separated? That can put a stop to her claim on anything you earn (ie a new business) after separation, otherwise if you start a business and make a million or win the lottery, she can tuck into that as well until the divorce comes through. You also need to get a clean-break as well or she can go back to the courts AFTER a divorce for more, if for example you had a highly successful business.
Oh and ITS ALL STACKED IN THE WIFE'S FAVOR, no matter what she's done. And if you fooled around it's your own fault, she'll take you for all you've got.
i do believe, although I might be wrong, that assets obtained before marriage are not included in a settlement??
"The general view taken by the court is that the Wife is spending her time at home looking after Junior/s whilst your working. Her input to the financial success of the family is the maintaining of home for you, your child/ren and yourself. The court assumes that you would not be capable of earning what you do, without her support....Even if that support is spent in the shops/on her back or dining with the ladies...."
That's what annoys me about the assumptions made by the court. I have full custody, full time, of two kids from the marriage. And... since we divorced my earnings have only increased whilst being a full time father. I now earn almost twice what I did when married, and I wasn't on poverty wages then.
It's a bit like the silliness of these premiership footballers who get divorced and the wife wants half.... why half? Supported him in his career? Seriously? He could have paid for a full time nanny for each child, cooks and cleaners (and he probably did anyway) and it wouldn't cost anything near what the ex wife will want in a divorce. And bizarrely the courts give it to them. How can they advance his career when most of them couldn't explain the offside rule?
For me, getting rid of the ex wife was like having one less child. Now I only have two children to look after, before the divorce she was far more demanding on my time than both of the children combined :-)
That's what annoys me about the assumptions made by the court. I have full custody, full time, of two kids from the marriage. And... since we divorced my earnings have only increased whilst being a full time father. I now earn almost twice what I did when married, and I wasn't on poverty wages then.
It's a bit like the silliness of these premiership footballers who get divorced and the wife wants half.... why half? Supported him in his career? Seriously? He could have paid for a full time nanny for each child, cooks and cleaners (and he probably did anyway) and it wouldn't cost anything near what the ex wife will want in a divorce. And bizarrely the courts give it to them. How can they advance his career when most of them couldn't explain the offside rule?
For me, getting rid of the ex wife was like having one less child. Now I only have two children to look after, before the divorce she was far more demanding on my time than both of the children combined :-)
Ursicles said:
He does live with her, but lives with me for 50% of the time as well - which is why i sold the flat for a house so he could do that.
IIRC, based on my brother in law's experience, you are entitled to a percentage of the child benefits related to the time he spends living with you.He used to pick his kids up from school on Thursday evening, and she used to pick them up Monday evening to fit in her work and new boyfriend, so he got 50%.
I know someone who was married for about 10 years. Initially his wife moved into his house, then at her instigation they sold it and bought a bigger one. He put the (his) equity from the first house into the second, I don't think she put any capital in but she helped pay the mortgage.
She then walked out taking nothing except a suitcase and her car. A few years later they divorced, no talk of finances, no children involved.
Now, nearly 20 years after she walked out and about 12 years after the divorce, she is after him for money. Specifically her share of the house which he's been paying a mortgage on single handed ever since she walked out.
What on earth should he expect to be asked to pay in this situation? How can she possibly expect a significant proportion of the value of the house?
She then walked out taking nothing except a suitcase and her car. A few years later they divorced, no talk of finances, no children involved.
Now, nearly 20 years after she walked out and about 12 years after the divorce, she is after him for money. Specifically her share of the house which he's been paying a mortgage on single handed ever since she walked out.
What on earth should he expect to be asked to pay in this situation? How can she possibly expect a significant proportion of the value of the house?
Rick101 said:
Every time I read one of these threads I think, why the heck do people do it?
Though being noted as the 'miserable' one for hating weddings in general, I do think, thankfully, more people are realising what a ridiculous thing a marriage is.
Sound's like you're fairly well off so though you'll lose a lot, hopefully you won't be destitute.
Its just as bad moving in with somone, i'll stay singleThough being noted as the 'miserable' one for hating weddings in general, I do think, thankfully, more people are realising what a ridiculous thing a marriage is.
Sound's like you're fairly well off so though you'll lose a lot, hopefully you won't be destitute.
Read a great quote on here the other week. Marrage, find a girl you dont like and buy her a house!
Dr Jekyll said:
I know someone who was married for about 10 years. Initially his wife moved into his house, then at her instigation they sold it and bought a bigger one. He put the (his) equity from the first house into the second, I don't think she put any capital in but she helped pay the mortgage.
She then walked out taking nothing except a suitcase and her car. A few years later they divorced, no talk of finances, no children involved.
Now, nearly 20 years after she walked out and about 12 years after the divorce, she is after him for money. Specifically her share of the house which he's been paying a mortgage on single handed ever since she walked out.
What on earth should he expect to be asked to pay in this situation? How can she possibly expect a significant proportion of the value of the house?
Did his ex ever remarry?She then walked out taking nothing except a suitcase and her car. A few years later they divorced, no talk of finances, no children involved.
Now, nearly 20 years after she walked out and about 12 years after the divorce, she is after him for money. Specifically her share of the house which he's been paying a mortgage on single handed ever since she walked out.
What on earth should he expect to be asked to pay in this situation? How can she possibly expect a significant proportion of the value of the house?
If so, she loses her right to any financial claim.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Dr Jekyll said:
I know someone who was married for about 10 years. Initially his wife moved into his house, then at her instigation they sold it and bought a bigger one. He put the (his) equity from the first house into the second, I don't think she put any capital in but she helped pay the mortgage.
She then walked out taking nothing except a suitcase and her car. A few years later they divorced, no talk of finances, no children involved.
Now, nearly 20 years after she walked out and about 12 years after the divorce, she is after him for money. Specifically her share of the house which he's been paying a mortgage on single handed ever since she walked out.
What on earth should he expect to be asked to pay in this situation? How can she possibly expect a significant proportion of the value of the house?
Did his ex ever remarry?She then walked out taking nothing except a suitcase and her car. A few years later they divorced, no talk of finances, no children involved.
Now, nearly 20 years after she walked out and about 12 years after the divorce, she is after him for money. Specifically her share of the house which he's been paying a mortgage on single handed ever since she walked out.
What on earth should he expect to be asked to pay in this situation? How can she possibly expect a significant proportion of the value of the house?
If so, she loses her right to any financial claim.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff