Divorce help!

[chip*]

Tim Cognito said:

From a friend's experience I echo the notion that solicitors are the ones who make the whole situation much more acrimonious and ensure it goes on as long as possible, for obvious reasons.

Based on my experience, family solicitors are total scums (yes, I even express this same view to my own solicitor!)
They game the system and manipulate the situation for their own benefit. My case should have been closed last summer (we agree on 95% of the final settlement via meditation with my ex!), but once her solicitors got involved, everything became an issue, attacks became personal, delay tactics etc.,Just received another £2k monthly legal bill, but the end is in sight...

[wiggy001]

chip* said:

Tim Cognito said:

From a friend's experience I echo the notion that solicitors are the ones who make the whole situation much more acrimonious and ensure it goes on as long as possible, for obvious reasons.

Based on my experience, family solicitors are total scums (yes, I even express this same view to my own solicitor!)
They game the system and manipulate the situation for their own benefit. My case should have been closed last summer (we agree on 95% of the final settlement via meditation with my ex!), but once her solicitors got involved, everything became an issue, attacks became personal, delay tactics etc.,Just received another £2k monthly legal bill, but the end is in sight...

I agree to a degree.

I used a solicitor recommended to me. She was very busy but very good and had no need to drag things on for any longer than necessary. She explained to me that she would try t wrap things up as quickly as possible, not least because by providing a good service she gets all of her work via referrals. She was expensive but good.

My ex on the other hand used a dodgy "McKenzie Friend" who worked for a solicitor. Between them they convinced her to go down the well trodden domestic abuse route. To limit the financial outlay for her, they also did the Financial stuff where their fee was a percentage of her "winnings". Total scum.

I've heard this story of similar from many others over recent months and it is something that needs to be addressed, not least because McKenzie friends are completely unregulated and many (along with many solicitors) are immoral.

[av185]

Abc321 said:

Is it not the case in the UK if you are living together, joint mortgage, etc. then you are essentially married?

Yep effectively.

Cohabitees especially if over 2 years have essentially the same financial rights as married couples as many have found out to their financial cost ££.

Also see Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents Act) 1975.

Scary stuff for sure.

[S2r]

Animal said:

CloudStuff said:

Right in the middle of this now. Nothing to add to the excellent detail provided. Feck me it's nasty. Properly dark.

Same here. The most awful experience.

It does get better, not financially in my case but I am in a much better place.

I am living again, rather than just existing, and that is so much better than just having a big number in the bank.

Someone said that they realised that they had never seen me really happy before and you can't put a price on that.

[Animal]

S2r said:

Animal said:

CloudStuff said:

Right in the middle of this now. Nothing to add to the excellent detail provided. Feck me it's nasty. Properly dark.

Same here. The most awful experience.

It does get better, not financially in my case but I am in a much better place.

I am living again, rather than just existing, and that is so much better than just having a big number in the bank.

Someone said that they realised that they had never seen me really happy before and you can't put a price on that.

Yes, I think the end is finally in sight and whilst I've been very pessimistic about the whole thing I'm hoping that some common sense will apply when it comes to the final decision (I'm in arbitration).

I'd read a quote somewhere that said that men go to a solicitor asking "How can I get out of this?" and women ask "How much can I get out of this?". A terrible generalisation I know, but rings true for me.

[JagLover]

Vasco said:

For most men there's never been any significant long term advantage of getting married. Any benefits are invariably short term.
.

Not sure that is the case historically as it would have been the main way to have children before the acceptance of children born out of wedlock.

I think now it is a worse deal than historically as modern women seem far more prone to initiate a divorce (often after already meeting the next partner) for reasons outside the control of the man. I.E. not due to his infidelity or abuse.

It is a poor deal for modern men, but decades ago you would not necessarily say the same.

[TownIdiot]

You say this as if men have no agency in how they live their married life.

The law is the same for men and women.

[chip*]

TownIdiot said:

The law is the same for men and women.

Why don't you ask a family solicitors these 2 questions?

- Can a guy claim a share of his wife's inheritance?

- Can a woman claim a share of her husband's inheritance?

Please report back once you have the answers, and we will see if they come back the "same".

[spookly]

I was one of those blokes who married someone that worked hard and contributed, and then she unilaterally decided she wanted to work part time, and then never work again as soon as she was pregnant with our first.

I never agreed with this arrangement, nor wanted to support her lazy ass in this way. But, short of instantly divorcing her while she was pregnant, it isn't like there is much you can do.

6 or 7 years later, I moved out due to her behaviour and mental health issues. Left it a year to see if she could get herself together, she didn't. She got worse, and I ended up back in the matrimonial home with the kids while she stayed with a friend.
Started a divorce.

Spoke to two solicitors for an initial consultation, and both told me to expect to be paying her £1500+ a month for a long time due to her not working, and me earning reasonably well.

By complete luck, about two weeks before the financial hearing I was offered redundancy by my employer. Walked into court an unemployed man, and got a much better deal than if I'd been working. Gave up one of my pensions, and a small % of equity in matrimonial home. Walked away with a clean break and divorce finalised in the same court session.

Spent 6 to 8 months relaxing and spending more time with kids and living off the generous redundancy payment, and then went back to working again.

Ended up getting dragged back to court by her about 2 years later, as she wanted to see more of the kids. Didn't work out for her, as the court basically said that if they chose not to go then they shouldn't be forced to and were old enough to decide, and that I had the final say over whether they should or not.

I won't get married again. It's been a decade, and I've not even considered cohabiting. Ended a few relationships because they insisted we had to "move forwards" and move in together. I didn't want anything upsetting the relaxing and peaceful home I had with my kids.
Having my own space and time and a girlfriend elsewhere who I can see on my terms works fine for me. And if I'm not in a relationship then I'm quite content with my own company and have plenty of friends.

The most sad and lonely people I've known have been in loveless marriages. Miserable because none of their emotional needs are met, and don't have the freedom to get those needs met elsewhere. fk that.

[TownIdiot]

chip* said:

TownIdiot said:

The law is the same for men and women.

Why don't you ask a family solicitors these 2 questions?

- Can a guy claim a share of his wife's inheritance?

- Can a woman claim a share of her husband's inheritance?

Please report back once you have the answers, and we will see if they come back the "same".

Why do you think the answers would be different?

[chip*]

My personal view is irrelevant.
So, what is the lawful position for these 2 scenarios, are they the same then?

[TownIdiot]

chip* said:

My personal view is irrelevant.
So, what is the lawful position for these 2 scenarios, are they the same then?

All things being equal yes.

[chip*]

Well, I hope you have a fabulous partner so you wouldn't encounter these scenarios, because being equal isn't quite clear cut when it comes to family law.

[TownIdiot]

chip* said:

Well, I hope you have a fabulous partner so you wouldn't encounter these scenarios, because being equal isn't quite clear cut when it comes to family law.

It's hardly a shock there family law is complicated.
What's the answer to your question?

[chip*]

On the surface, the same law applies, but without going into details, it's generally more difficult for the guy to claim. To lighten the mood during the conversation with my solicitor, we label these scenarios "51/49" for this very reason!

Edited by chip* on Monday 10th March 13:05

[TownIdiot]

So to answer the question asked here

chip* said:

Why don't you ask a family solicitors these 2 questions?

- Can a guy claim a share of his wife's inheritance?

- Can a woman claim a share of her husband's inheritance?

Please report back once you have the answers, and we will see if they come back the "same".

The situation is that the law is the same for both.


It's then applied for each case according to circumstances

[chip*]

..and with varying results, depending if you are male or female i.e. not 50/50 as you think in your fantasy world

[lenny007]

Irrespective of his and hers inheritances, this is a pretty good blog on how inheritances or indeed any pre-matrimonial assets are addressed such as previous properties, etc.

https://osborneslaw.com/blog/inheritance-and-divor...

TLDR - if the inheritance or assets are used for combined or familial benefit, they can be included in divorce settlements. If they've always remained separate to the family finances and the family / wife has never received any benefit from them, then they can be successfully argued as being non-matrimonial assets.

The basic premise of the courts is that they want each party to be financially self sufficient as soon as is reasonably practical. That doesn't necessarily mean to the same standard of living as before but that will be taken into consideration if required.

[lenny007]

Animal said:

S2r said:

Animal said:

CloudStuff said:

Right in the middle of this now. Nothing to add to the excellent detail provided. Feck me it's nasty. Properly dark.

Same here. The most awful experience.

It does get better, not financially in my case but I am in a much better place.

I am living again, rather than just existing, and that is so much better than just having a big number in the bank.

Someone said that they realised that they had never seen me really happy before and you can't put a price on that.

Yes, I think the end is finally in sight and whilst I've been very pessimistic about the whole thing I'm hoping that some common sense will apply when it comes to the final decision (I'm in arbitration).

I'd read a quote somewhere that said that men go to a solicitor asking "How can I get out of this?" and women ask "How much can I get out of this?". A terrible generalisation I know, but rings true for me.

Sorry to hear it's been tough but as previously said, it does get better. The pressure eases off and you realise just how unhappy you were.

The best advice i could give to anyone getting divorced or thinking about it is to do some research about what will happen and what could happen and then temper any expectations you have on what will happen.

Be reasonable, be fair but also be firm when required.

[TownIdiot]

chip* said:

..and with varying results, depending if you are male or female i.e. not 50/50 as you think in your fantasy world

There is nothing I have said that is remotely based on fantasy

On the other hand you seem a bit bitter and twisted.