Being told " I don't love you anymore"

[Dashnine]

Wombat3 said:

Psycho Warren said:

I wasnt thinking of massive quantities but tens of thousands which can be easily disappeared and used to fund a cushy new lifestyle when you run off leaving the ex with empty accounts and a load of debt. Happens a lot, the ex gets home, finds the partner missing in action and all the easy access money gone never to be seen again. Especially easy with joint account access.

I had to move a few things around into safe keeping when I got wind of what was coming.

Nothing hidden, nothing disappeared, just moved out of reach for safe keeping temporarily & then ultimately all accounted for & split equitably.

It didn't go down very well when I did it & then also cancelled her additional/joint credit card on my account.

Always makes sense to be vigilant

Did the same, had various questions during financial disclosure trying to establish ownership but happy to divide monies in personal accounts as it was shared funds and it could be seen there it came from.

Any hiding of finances would have to be done in advance of 12 months as when you provide 12 months of statements it will e clear where the money’s gone. I did get questioned about my ‘Santander’ account into which money was regularly being transferred into, turns out it was my sons account which we funded and she had forgotten about.

[theboss]

Psycho Warren said:

I think its a case of in reality who actually would pay out the money and go the effort of having it traced? Thats why so many online fraudsters get away with what they do as often there is no desire to spend a lot of money doing forensic accounting to trace such funds for minor crimes or in these cases a divorce settlement when the money is gone and not coming back.

Somebody being deprived of hundreds of thousands of pounds unlawfully?

The money might not come back, but I would think that proving the other party intentionally moved/hid money and lied about it might be good enough to ensure other assets were distributed more favourably. And they will be probably be awarded the costs as well.

If you're going to send loads of money offshore, you ought to take yourself with it and never come back.

[FNG]

Psycho Warren said:

I guess she hid the assets as surely hed of had half a stake in her house too?

Not much, she wasn't that devious although tried to massively understate the value of the house she bought, and more recently tried to sue Dad for more because she's spent a lot of her assets while he's been careful with his. Happily the magistrate was fair and balanced, and dismissed it.

Thankfully us kids had left home a long time before. She didn't stay with dad for our sakes, but to make sure she didn't need to work to support herself.

[Psycho Warren]

theboss said:

The money might not come back, but I would think that proving the other party intentionally moved/hid money and lied about it might be good enough to ensure other assets were distributed more favourably. And they will be probably be awarded the costs as well.

I wonder if that is the case with many seemingly out of touch judges though? All the money has been wasted but with whats left, the kids still need a home etc and shes "incapable of working" for whatever reason.

Doesnt seem out the realm of plausability for the ex who hid the money to still get half of whats left or more if kids involved.

Would they even lock her up? They are supposed to be locking up parents with care who disobey family court judges but in practice how often dose that happen? think of the children etc etc and suddenly its a suspended sentence.

[theboss]

Clearing out a joint account or some savings is one thing, but I'd be willing to reckon that the majority of people hiding substantial financial assets from divorce courts aren't the same ones who are also expecting to keep the house and kids.

[BlackStang5point0]

FNG said:

Come on. It's PH. Buy an appreciating classic car, store it off the books, sell once the dust has settled.

Sort of related although not a divorce situation but a very good mate of mine restored a car about 10 years ago (he owns a bodyshop). At the time he probably only had about £10k invested in it but over recent years the value has rocketed - probably now worth 5 times that at least. Trying to work out what to do with it to, like you say get it off the books..!!

[The spinner of plates]

BlackStang5point0 said:

FNG said:

Come on. It's PH. Buy an appreciating classic car, store it off the books, sell once the dust has settled.

Sort of related although not a divorce situation but a very good mate of mine restored a car about 10 years ago (he owns a bodyshop). At the time he probably only had about £10k invested in it but over recent years the value has rocketed - probably now worth 5 times that at least. Trying to work out what to do with it to, like you say get it off the books..!!

Some people would sell it to a trusted person for £100 because it's a broken pile of junk that was recently damaged beyond reasonable repair whilst sititng in the garage uninsured.

[GT3Manthey]

theboss said:

Somebody being deprived of hundreds of thousands of pounds unlawfully?

The money might not come back, but I would think that proving the other party intentionally moved/hid money and lied about it might be good enough to ensure other assets were distributed more favourably. And they will be probably be awarded the costs as well.

If you're going to send loads of money offshore, you ought to take yourself with it and never come back.

My mate after leaving his missus and kids for the 23yr old ( he was 52 at the time) started working his way through the savings account buying the new bird jewellery etc so the ex transferred all the cash into her own account to stop him. Fair play.

This was then used for the running of the house with the kids ( again fair play) but his actions were lobbed at him during the divorce proceedings.

Divorce is now done and the house has finally sold.

The ex gets 60% of all assets and 50% of his pension.

Was it worth it i ask myself.........

[Dashnine]

GT3Manthey said:

theboss said:

Somebody being deprived of hundreds of thousands of pounds unlawfully?

The money might not come back, but I would think that proving the other party intentionally moved/hid money and lied about it might be good enough to ensure other assets were distributed more favourably. And they will be probably be awarded the costs as well.

If you're going to send loads of money offshore, you ought to take yourself with it and never come back.

My mate after leaving his missus and kids for the 23yr old ( he was 52 at the time) started working his way through the savings account buying the new bird jewellery etc so the ex transferred all the cash into her own account to stop him. Fair play.

This was then used for the running of the house with the kids ( again fair play) but his actions were lobbed at him during the divorce proceedings.

Divorce is now done and the house has finally sold.

The ex gets 60% of all assets and 50% of his pension.

Was it worth it i ask myself.........

Not knowing all the details and assuming she didn’t work - that’s about how it works.

He can’t expect not to have his jewellery buying for his girlfriend (assumption: out of joint savings) thrown at him. It will be joint money if it passed through a joint account or was a joint savings account.

[theboss]

GT3Manthey said:

My mate after leaving his missus and kids for the 23yr old ( he was 52 at the time) started working his way through the savings account buying the new bird jewellery etc so the ex transferred all the cash into her own account to stop him. Fair play.

This was then used for the running of the house with the kids ( again fair play) but his actions were lobbed at him during the divorce proceedings.

Divorce is now done and the house has finally sold.

The ex gets 60% of all assets and 50% of his pension.

Was it worth it i ask myself.........

It's a fairly predictable outcome. What else did he expect!

[anonymous-user]

I struggle to understand why men who divorce are upset at their ex-wives being entitled to a half share of the assets. It's one of the biggest symptoms of marriage. If you don't want to risk that entitlement, don't marry!

[hyphen]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

I struggle to understand why men who divorce are upset at their ex-wives being entitled to a half share of the assets. It's one of the biggest symptoms of marriage. If you don't want to risk that entitlement, don't marry!

Because most don't consider that they will get divorced, or that the person they married may turn out to be rather greedy and be willing to say or do anything in the divorce process. It's only after the event that does one realise how low people can stoop to in a divorce.

Me prior: "Did you hear what so and so got up to in the divorce? My wife is thankfully not like that, and we would reasonably agree it amongst ourselves"

[hyphen]

Musician going through divorce releases song in which he calls his ex-wife greedy
Ex-Wife claims the song makes her fear for her safety and she needs a restraining order.
Judge turns her down.

Lawyers laugh themselves to the bank

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9352...

[throt]

hyphen said:

Lawyers laugh themselves to the bank

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9352...

Yep, literally. Lawyers absolutely love all the drama. Even when a couple fight over the last pillow. They can coin in another 5k just from that dispute.

When people divorce all get a piece of that cake.

The government need to implement another system to stop all this BS.

Legal fees and the way they generate them is a disgrace

[anonymous-user]

hyphen said:

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

I struggle to understand why men who divorce are upset at their ex-wives being entitled to a half share of the assets. It's one of the biggest symptoms of marriage. If you don't want to risk that entitlement, don't marry!

Because most don't consider that they will get divorced, or that the person they married may turn out to be rather greedy and be willing to say or do anything in the divorce process. It's only after the event that does one realise how low people can stoop to in a divorce.

Me prior: "Did you hear what so and so got up to in the divorce? My wife is thankfully not like that, and we would reasonably agree it amongst ourselves"

I think the big issue is that women file for divorce in the majority of cases. This is the issue, men get upset when their wives divorce them and expect (usually more) than half of everything. Most men never see it coming so are blindsided by the whole situation whilst the woman is calm and calculated.

Also imagine being in the situation where your wife files for divorce, stays in the house and you remain on the mortgage. The wife cannot afford to buy you out and cannot take the mortgage over on her own. I know this is Piston heads so any powerfully built director getting divorced would just buy themselves another £1 million house in surrey but it is not like that for most men.

The divorced man ends up renting a crappy flat or living with his parents, the banks laugh when he asks about a mortgage as he is on the mortgage at the marital home. Divorced man is essentially financially ruined as he cannot buy another house and doesn't have enough working years left.

Then one day he goes to the marital home to see the children and he sees the boyfriends car on the drive of the house he is paying for whilst he lives with his parents.

Can you see why men get upset?

[Cold]

Yep, many only choose to seek legal financial advice about the implications of marriage once the marriage is ended, but by then it's too late. Such advice really should be taken before the wedding.

[bristolracer]

For me it was the access to my children that was the biggest issue
She withdraws access because she is angry
I take her to court
She claims emotional abuse with zero proof
I counter claim
Get renewed access as they yield before a court order
See the kids for a bit
She withdraws access again as she is angry
It goes back to court
I ask for order
They yield
No order given (for what they are worth)
'Family' solicitors get ever more cash......

There was a review some years ago which changed nothing, I was so hoping for the scandi solution 'you both bred them you both have them' but it didn't happen

I totally respect guys who dress as batman and get on bridges and protest, I know why they do it and how fked the system is

[anonymous-user]

bristolracer said:

I totally respect guys who dress as batman and get on bridges and protest, I know why they do it and how fked the system is

Totally, this is the trump card the woman always holds, being able to weaponise the children to get what she wants. As soon as you refuse to do something she wants she will threaten to stop you seeing the children or just make excuses as to why they cannot see you at the last minute.

Then you end up in a tightrope situation of trying to protect your own financial interests but keeping her happy enough to allow you to see the children.

Unless you have been in this situation you have no idea what it is like, it is clear the people on this thread who have never been through a divorce and live in a fantasy world.

[duffy78]

Joey Deacon said:

Totally, this is the trump card the woman always holds, being able to weaponise the children to get what she wants. As soon as you refuse to do something she wants she will threaten to stop you seeing the children or just make excuses as to why they cannot see you at the last minute.

Then you end up in a tightrope situation of trying to protect your own financial interests but keeping her happy enough to allow you to see the children.

Unless you have been in this situation you have no idea what it is like, it is clear the people on this thread who have never been through a divorce and live in a fantasy world.

The other side to this is men using the threat of withholding, or not even paying, child maintenance. also abhorrent behaviour. Tit for tat sometimes isnt it.

I was threatened with losing access by my ex various times. In the end it always came to naught so was filed by me mentally as part of her gas lighting behaviour and moving forwards never taken seriously. Early days it worked though as she typically ended up with what she was using the threat to get.

[hyphen]

bristolracer said:

For me it was the access to my children that was the biggest issue
She withdraws access because she is angry
I take her to court
She claims emotional abuse with zero proof
I counter claim
Get renewed access as they yield before a court order
See the kids for a bit
She withdraws access again as she is angry
It goes back to court
I ask for order
They yield
No order given (for what they are worth)
'Family' solicitors get ever more cash......

There was a review some years ago which changed nothing, I was so hoping for the scandi solution 'you both bred them you both have them' but it didn't happen

I totally respect guys who dress as batman and get on bridges and protest, I know why they do it and how fked the system is

Once you have an initial Court Child Arrangement Order, why let her withdraw access? Just collect them straight from school/nursery/holiday club whatever. No care provider would can stop you, as have parental responsibility, never mind an order.

If you collected direct from her, she can call the police or social and attempt to play victim, but neither will give her the time of the day once they see a Court Order.

My ex has been playing these games, but once a Court Order is done, I would not indulge her silly games further, it is up to her to go to Court if she wants a change.

Edited by hyphen on Friday 12th March 11:12