Financial Dispute Resolution – look out for these stumbling blocks
Some spouses go prepared.
A Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) is a court appointment during which a divorcing couple can be helped towards a financial settlement. I usually welcome these hearings, but with new costs rules in place I have noticed an uncomfortable trend.
A typical FDR proceeds as follows. After an application has been issued to the court and formalities such as financial disclosure have been complied with, the parties are given the opportunity to settle the case on a “Without Prejudice” basis, similar to mediation.
A judge hears the parties in a courtroom – in most cases, this is a small private room – and attempts to effect a settlement. The parties are not called upon to give evidence, but listen to the arguments advanced on their behalf. The judge will have read the details of the parties’ respective positions beforehand. The judge indicates how the case is likely to play out, and the parties then go away to try and reach an agreement between themselves.
A successful outcome means that a couple can walk away from court ready to begin new lives. An unsuccessful outcome means that the case continues. When this happens legal costs will mount and several months later, a battle will be fought out in court. The cost, stress and worry of such a battle should never be underestimated.
However the pressure to achieve a successful outcome, together with the new rules requiring each party to pay their own costs, have become useful weapons in the unscrupulous spouse’s armoury.
It is worth bearing in mind that because judges are accustomed to an adversarial system, they don’t always approach FDRs as mediators. Many judges are excellent; however, if a judge does not use his or her skills to persuade the parties to negotiate, or to issue wake-up calls when necessary, a FDR can be a fruitless and expensive waste of time.
I am also beginning to think that in some cases, judges can be a little naïve when spouses decide to play to a dirtier game. This can happen when a wealthier spouse – and let’s say it is the husband, because it often is – makes his wife a deliberately low offer. For example, he may try to obtain a clean break rather than an agreement to pay maintenance, even when a clean break would be a highly unlikely outcome in court.
He knows his offer is too low, but he believes that he has little to lose. He can either force his wife into accepting the offer, because she is terrified about her mounting legal costs and the length of time it will take for the court hearing to take place, or he can force her to litigate and realise all those fears. If she litigates and he is ordered to pay her a greater sum, the only downside is his increased costs – and let’s remember, the wife still has her own bill to pay. For her, it can be a crushing defeat or a pyrrhic victory; for him, it can be a gamble that he is prepared to take.
As the economy goes from bad to worse, I have observed an increased number of such “gambles”. These can pose problems for judges. After all, faced with a commercially-minded, hard-headed litigant who is determined to push the other party into a corner, what can the court do? Very little, it seems. The court can merely conclude the FDR and make orders for the case to head for a final hearing.
In one case that I observed recently, the husband pulled this trick and the judge responded with a fruitless attempt to find some middle ground. But this middle ground suited no-one: the husband wouldn’t countenance it, and it came nowhere near what the wife was seeking. The judge did not give the husband the “hard word” to encourage him to move towards a financial settlement. So the husband left the court as he entered it: intending to take the case to a final hearing if necessary, but convinced that his wife will settle with him beforehand.
There are those who would argue that costs consequences may still arise if there is a failure to make sensible open proposals. However, Judges are more likely to regard this as an exceptional course of action rather than the norm.
If you are heading for a FDR, I wish you well – but please be aware of these potential pitfalls. When these hearings work, they work extremely well. However, it does concern me when spouses attempt to “game” them in the way that I have outlined above. In my opinion it is a failing of the system that needs to be remedied.
|
Share this post
|
Get free family law updates
|
Marilyn Stowe’s new book: expert advice on all aspects of divorce, for just 99p!
Divorce & Splitting Up by Marilyn Stowe is the essential how-to book for anyone who is getting divorced or splitting up from a partner. Read more >>
"A must buy that really opens your eyes to what is involved if you are considering or going through a divorce." - Amanda Brown
"This will answer your questions in a way that non-lawyers can understand." - Miss P.
"This really has helped me to see that there is light at the end of the tunnel and I will come out of it a stronger person." - J
Awards
IAML
35 Comments
Justin Worden on July 23, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Dear Marilyn,
I found your blog searching for the term “FDR”, three letter acronyms are horrific but I guess nessecary? I have my Financial court hearing tomorrow and looking through some of your articles I have been cheered up and educated. Wonderfully written and easy to understand which I believe is a real compliment…..And your picture of the rabbit in the pan put a smile on my face, thanks for the understanding…..These things are never easy:-)
Regards
Justin….
Marilyn Stowe on July 23, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Thanks and good luck for tomorrow!
Jennifer Brown on April 16, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Dear Marilyn,
I am in exactly the same position as this. Being a housewife and mother of 3 young children and only divorced for a short time, my ex-husband applied for variation. He has since cut monthly maintenance, pays it late and did not pay any of the £79k annual sum for child and spousal maintenance. The FDR is in 3 weeks time and unlikely to settle as there are various undisclosures.
Every last penny I had has been paying for legal fees, and it will cost me a further £25-35k to a Final Hearing in a year’s time. I simply have no choice but to carry on.
There must be so many people who have no choice but to give in.
Regards
Jennifer
Neil on April 21, 2010 at 9:32 am
An interesting post from more than a year ago.
I hope you don’t mind me joining Jennifer, above, in resurrecting the discussion on this!
I wonder what the remedy could be.
It would be helpful to have some method where a Judge could record, at the Financial Dispute Resolution hearing, whether she or he felt that one party was adopting an unrealistic, tactical and unreasonable position, and perhaps give and record warnings on costs.
This could perhaps be done with a form, or FDR certificate, which is provided to the parties but not held on file, confirming or otherwise that the Judge believes the FDR has been conducted with appropriate openness, and readiness to settle, or has been used tactically.
That would focus the minds of the less realistic party and provide some evidence towards supporting a costs claim at a later date on the grounds of unreasonable conduct of litigation.
This could not be kept on the court file, in case it came to the knowledge of the Judge at the final hearing. The sanctity between the financial dispute resolution hearing and the final hearing require different Judges to hear each hearing and that should be preserved.
Or should it, I now wonder?
What would happen if, in such circumstances a Judge could make a finding that one party has sought to “game” the system, as you put it, and subsequently record such findings on the Court file itself to provide continuity through to the final hearing?
Would that inhibit tactically low proposals to settle?
Bearing in mind that proposals are meant to have been exchanged before hand, either party could give notice that they believe the other’s proposals are outside of the brackets of reasonability. Both parties and the court would then be on notice that this might be an issue. It becomes incumbent upon the recalcitrant settler to modify the offer beofre or at the final dispute resolution hearing or stand by his or her unreasonable proposal in full visibility copme the final hearing.
Without prejudice protection, after all, is to encourage and protect sincere attempts to settle. Why should it be allowed to be abused by the woefully inadequate, tactical, litigant?
Just some thoughts for debate.
Sion Burgess on July 3, 2010 at 7:49 am
The system plays both ways. Bitter, revenge seeking spouses are equally as capable of gaming the system.
The bottom line is that the system is broken. There should be a defined outcome from which parties have to justify deviation, rather than this woolly system to which the outcome is wholly random and based upon where it is heard. The focus of knowing your outcome will be 3 years maintenance at x% will both discourage frivolous divorce and excessive litigation.
cherylprior on February 3, 2011 at 8:32 pm
i have read your internet court appraisal relating to divorce. I find myself in a very similar sittuation. at the mercy of the courts.
I was married for a short while four years. I had a superior wealth to him but not only supported him financially and domestically now found that i may have to give hime half the substantial house i boughjt in total to him. Miller V miller case.
He did not contribute anything of capital and also procured a successful business because of my domestic and financial assistance. Whilst I understand in marriage each has to help each other in this situation he actually profits from the scenario. Surely this should not be the purpose of the court.
As you say at the FDR it was not possible to out forward facts regarding contribution merely negotiations towrds a settlement. It seems back to front. Surely at the FDR we should be able to put forward our claims regarding needs, compensation and contributions.
regards
cheryl prior
Lisa P on April 7, 2011 at 1:18 am
Hi Marilyn, I also found your blog after searching ‘FDR’ and I’m so glad I did as I wasn’t aware of the ‘new costs rules’ and I don’t think my sister’s lawyer has ever explained this to her.
My sister fled her home after her husband violently attacked her and has been in hiding ever since.
There are no children and the only significant asset is a house.
My sister has asked for a 50/50 split of assets and debts, and though her husband has agreed (via email), his actions contradict this as he has found every excuse possible for not putting their house on the market.
She is effectively being held to ransom.
When she first sought legal advice, her lawyer advised that they may reach a point where it is not worth continuing with legal action as there may not be enough equity in the house to settle her legal fees.
Jennifer (above) is right when she says ‘There must be so many people who have no choice but to give in’.
I’m so angry and frustrated that a spouse or partner can do what my brother-in-law is doing and my sister just has to take it.
If she does nothing, she gets nothing, but doing something, i.e. proceeding with a FDR, may still yield the same result…Arrrgghh!!
Thanks for the insight.
CJLeeUK on July 6, 2011 at 12:24 pm
The system definitely needs to be looked at and the loop holes closed!
A close friend of mine has just finished going through his fdr.
Basically, his ex has a part time job working 3 days a week. She has made no effort to find another source of income – this was also the case before the split and was a major contributor to the joint debt that they acquired. She stopped paying toward all of the joint debts as soon as he moved out 18 months ago. As a result, he has had to pay out significant amounts to ensure that his (and her) credit could remain reasonable unblemished to allow them both to get mortgages etc. She had a personal loan in her name which she put into debt recovery 10 months ago without telling him – because she couldn’t be bothered to increase her working hours to pay for it!!! But the result is that his credit has been adversely affected, as the mortgage is still in joint names.
All of the joint debts that he has had to pay by himself over the last year and half have not been taken into consideration when the decision was finally made – basically she got 50%!
How is that fair??? Surely he should have had a minimum of 50% + half of what he paid towards the joint debts over the last year and a half? Particularly as she was the respondent!
I am at the start of the whole process myself and I am not at all confident that the system is fair. Based on my friend’s experience and others I have read and heard about, I am tempted to be as unreasonable as I possibly can – that appears to be the way to go.
Too bad my ego won’t let me…
David on April 2, 2012 at 8:56 pm
I too have been subject to an unscrupulous spouse playing a dirty game. The difference this time is that I am the so called wealthy husband. All through the process I have tried to negotiate a reasonable settlement and have attempted mediation with a qualified lawyer. This resulted in me making an offer where she received half the value of the assets (excluding around £100,000 of money in her name that she claims to be her fathers), half my monthly income and half the cash value of the pensions, but this wasn’t enough for her – she wanted more of the pension. I am 55, she is 48 and she claims that she cannot work more than 10 hours per week, whilst I work 50 or more. There is enough money to go round, but we are certainly not super rich so I see no reason why she cannot contribute more to the household income. We recently sold the family house and she has moved into a new house with no mortgage. On the other hand I have a mortgage on my new property and she refuses to release any capital from the sale of the matrimonial home so that I can repay my mortgage. I offered to meet her in December to discuss the settlement but she cancelled the meeting. Her solicitor confirmed in writing we would meet in January but again this didn’t happen. She has refused to meet in February or March and now has decided to apply for an FDR because I won’t meet her demands for interim maintenance! The one benefit is that she will have to pay her own costs for the FDR which in my opinion is entirely appropriate as she has one of the most expensive law firms in London, whilst I have a fairly modest lawyer who is determined to help keep the costs down. The situation I find myself in is that my spouse is making unacceptably high demands knowing that she has little to lose at an FDR, whilst I am concerned about the mounting legal costs and find myself in the position where after paying substantial interim maintenance and an unnecessary mortgage each month, I do not have enough to pay my own solicitors bills.
Marilyn Stowe on April 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm
David
Why dont you suggest arbitration? An FDR may not produce an outcome, but will incur substantial legal costs.
Regards
Marilyn
"T" on April 20, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Your information on the FdR was very educative. I am going through the same issue right now, I will be attending my FDR next week.
My ex works away and he has done this since 10years that we have been together. We have two kids, had a home, I stayed at home to care for the children, while he worked. He is well paid and has only paid me minimal amounts for months to cater for my two young kids. He has now withdrawn all the savings from the accounts and has not given any reasonable cause for doing that. Now he is threatening not to pay me anything. I have now had to accumulate a massive debt just to care for the kids and pay my blls, whilst he has none. I have been adviced that he would he may keep the matrimonia home because there is not equity on it and pay some spousal maintenance, but no provision of a secured accomodation for the children and myself.
How can that be? My worry is that he works in countries that the British law has no jurisdiction over. I am uncertain that he might for one reason or the other, stop paying for this, wher will htat leave me and the kids then.
What is the best advice you can give me in this matter? I am really worried. Thanks
Marilyn Stowe on April 20, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Dear T
I’m sorry but you have given me insufficient information to advise you. I have no idea what your financial position actually is or that of your ex. However I assume you have a solicitor. Tell him or her what you have told me and make sure you obtain the advice you seek. Put it in writing. If I were you I’d make sure I was completely comfortable and finically protected going into my FDR and also fully aware of how an order can be enforced in the relevant jurisdiction. I agree with you it’s very important and its equally important that you have complete peace of mind.
Best wishes
Marilyn
'T' on April 22, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Thank you Marilyn for your response. I do have a solicitor, but was told that if the law cannot cover the jurisdiction then I am stuck. My ex earns over 70k per annum and I am merely surviving by with a minimum wage, with a yearly income of around £7,000 and depend mostly on benefits, as my earning income is low due to my caring for the children.
He has threatened to go bankrupt, retained the matrimonial home, which was put up for sale, but he took it off the market, and it is assumed that he might be allowed to have the house. He only stays in the country 2-3months in a year.
I have asked about these enforcements in different countries, but not received any concrete answer. Although, I have insisted on my full instructions on the maintenance and other issues be tendered in court, I am uncertain of how it will go.
Another issue if he does not appear on the day or if he does and we did not arrive at an agreement, will the final hearing favour myself or him?
Cheers.
A on April 28, 2012 at 5:26 am
Is there an appeal process that can be chosen after the FDR? I have just completed my FDR where I felt under pressure to give in to my ex because she has failed to provide information as to her earnings. I am employed in sales earning circa £45k whilst she is self employed showing £6.5K but drawing a wage on her business and in reality earning circa £30k but not disclosing this to the court or HMRC. She has walked away from all responsibilities of the joint home for 2 years which I have paid. I have made numerous offers which have all been refused and due to the costs and stress involved in trying to reach a resolution, ended up in hospital connected to an ECG. She is living with another partner – difficult to prove -taken a car loan in the meantime which she wanted me to pay and still does not have to pay any monies towards the house whilst it is bein sold. There are no dependants.
Marilyn Stowe on May 5, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Dear A and Concerned Brother
Thank you for your comments. In both cases it would be in appropriate to advise without full details.
I can only refer you to the respective lawyers, who are in a position to reply to you both.
More generally I would say that it is not uncommon for one party to try and back out of a deal done at an FDR and usually it is not possible. Your own lawyer can advise. Readers have often been warned by me that unless they are 100% satisfied they shouldn’t settle and later regret it. They should always ask for time to consider an offer in the clear light of day.
As to the costs, the general rule is there will be no order for costs. Readers should note that the court expects to see open offers to understand the parties positions during the proceedings. Without prejudice offers are also still made as additional efforts to try and settle the case. Court ordered requests for disclosure should be promptly complied with and if demonstrated to be oppressive and irrelevant, potentially a costs order might be made against the party who unnecessarily incurred the costs of compliance.
Regards
Marilyn
Concerned brother on April 29, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Marilyn, I found your FDR article very informative and also the link to “new costs rules” by David Hodson.
I am assisting my sister with her divorce and her FDR hearing was in February 2012. Following the FDR her barrister made a Calderbank offer to her husband (the Petitioner) which I now think is unusual after reading the article by David Hodson.
A final hearing is scheduled for June 2012. To date her husbands side has not responded to the Calderbank offer. Instead they have issued a further questionnaire even thought they have not made any discloures themselves (not even a single piece of paper) despite numerous requests from my sisters solicitors. My sister has made all her disclosures and proofs.
Could the fact that no disclosure has been received from the other side be the reason why a Calderbank offer was made rather than an open offer?
Her husband is playing a very dirty game and in an attempt to discredit her, has been pursuing untrue allegations that my sister is hiding money and earnings and is still involved in a small family business which she left 6 years before she and her husband separated. He hasn’t worked for over 4 years and is using Legal Aid wereas my sister is working hard to support her 3 children (with no financial assistance from her husband at all) and having to pay all her own legal costs.
I don’t think the FDR was of any benefit and my sister is now worried about her escalating legal costs with all the preparations now starting for the final hearing. I just hope that the law treats her fairly at the final hearing.
Rosewenn on June 21, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Hope you can help with my query. Ancillary Relief forms received and husband has admitted living with another woman for almost 3 years and paying into her house (she owns). For those years I have paid all the bills he left me and all the household bills and supported our son who is now 18 and going to Uni. Can husband still demand 50% of our joint house and/or can any part of her house/property/wages be taken into account.
Tom on June 29, 2012 at 11:05 am
It is interesting to see the angle taken by the article. My situation is average income husband facing wife on legal aid who has no incentive to settle as I have no money (just debts) and no assets and she has no money. The situation when facing people on legal aid is often worse than facing someone who can afford rich lawyers. Now after 18 months my wife has lost her legal aid funding – but as she has no money or assets – cost orders are meaningless even if ligitigation misconduct is proven. The stress of trying to work full time and pay legal fees and look after our 2 children has been enormous – but I get no help. Now I am representing myself and face this absurdly long time period till an FDR and final hearing. Ironically we had reached agreement at mediation until her solicitor got involved and called for more mediation. He then ignored me for 2 months, until I got a soliciotor. Her solicitor has failed to disclsoe information, failed to do things he agrees to and generally takes the piss. That this is funded by the taxpayer is an outrage. So now – we both are representing ourselves and costs seem meaningless to people with no money and limited understanding of how things work. The forms and guidance provided by the Court and Government are very poor.
Cathy on September 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Can I bypass the FDR and go straight to a final hearing as I am sure my ex husband will not be willing to negotiate and it will be an utter waste of money ? The FDR is next week.
Many thanks.
Marilyn Stowe on September 2, 2012 at 8:04 am
Cathy
Sometimes it is possible to by pass an FDR. The Judge may take the view at the First Appointment it will be worthless and order a full hearing but it’s not common.
Turn up and give it your best shot. Many people think an FDR will fail but are surprised by the case settling or if not by how much progress is made in clarifying all the issues.
Even if it doesn’t settle it might settle afterwards. A judge is good at working out who is being obstructive and may make comments that will sort out the problem.
Good luck.
Regards
Marilyn
Minnie on September 10, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Dear Marilyn,
My First Appointment hearing was changed into a FDR and now a Final Hearing has been listed. I am a single mother of a 2 year old and am about to loose my income from employment at the end of the week. My ex husband earns at least 60000 pounds a year but has created a lot of dept after the divorce in the form of a loan. We were only married for 2 years. I do not live in the UK as I lost the right to reside after the Decree Absolute and in the country I live in I am required by law to seek spousal maintenance to cover the costs of benefits (anything below 900 euro’s of maintenace simply gets deducted off benefits, this includes child maintenance). Is there any advice you could give me to make sure a decent amount of spousal maintenace is given by the Judge. Unfortunately I cannot apply for legal aid nor can I afford a lawyer to go to court on my behalf. He also has been very reluctant to pay child support the past 6 months aswell. Regards Minnie
Marilyn Stowe on September 10, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Dear Minnie
Thank you for your question. Legal Aid is available to pursue an application in this country, so presumably you do not qualify on financial grounds ie too much income or capital or both?
As for your current situation, I cant comment because I havent seen your Form E nor that of your former husband.
The court has power to make capital and income orders, and it will do so based upon both parties financial needs and their obligations and responsibilities. The court will consider what steps the parties should take to increase their own income and also the length of the marriage and the ages of the parties.
Do make sure that everything that was ordered to be done at the first hearing has been done, eg production of any documents and valuations and read through Section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 itemising your arguments in relation to every factor which is set out to present to the Judge in support of your case explaining what you want and why.
I hope this helps
Best wishes
Marilyn
Minnie on September 10, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Thanks Marilyn,
I do not qualify for Legal Aid unfortunately. All the paper work was sorted out before the First Appointment. I guess my question really is, are there any requirements that I need to do and how do I prepare for the Final Hearing?
Thanks in advance, Minnie
Marilyn Stowe on September 10, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Dear Minnie
In preparation for the final hearing, it is important to comply with the directions made at the FDR and make sure all relevant documents are in order and up to date.
I must stress that preparing for a final hearing is a lengthy process even for a solicitor. As in your case, for a litigant in person, it is the responsibility of the other party who is not a litigant in person to prepare the bundle of documents and if possible the contents of the documents should be agreed by both sides before the final hearing takes place. In other words make sure you have been sent a copy of the bundle of documents to be used at the final hearing beforehand. The party preparing the bundle should provide this not less than 4 working days before the hearing irrespective of whether the contents of the bundle have been agreed.
You must also ensure that all documents you provide are up to date as at the date of the hearing. You will need to provide relevant financial documents (including tax returns) providing details of your incomings and outgoings, assets and liabilities. This will help the judge gain an understanding of the basic parameters of the financial situation. If there has been an agreement as the division of certain types of property (chattels) this should also be listed and included.
14 days before the hearing you are also required to fill out a Form H1 giving full and up to date details of all the costs you have incurred at each stage of the case. This is quite a lengthy and difficult process, especially for a litigant in person, so you can request the district judge to dispense this requirement due to the fact that you are without legal representation. However it is common place for you to provide the other side with an ‘open statement’ which sets out the orders you wish the judge to make including the precise amounts requested.
As has already been said previously, the final hearing will largely depend on the district judge you have presiding over the case. It will be held in district judges chambers and will be private. Many judges require proceedings to follow a set pattern, others are more informal. Some will even let the parties know what he has in mind at the start of the proceedings having read all their financial information. He may then invite comment and discussion before going on to hear the evidence and arguments of both sides.
You must bear in mind that negotiations should be carried out up to the last minute to try and resolve the financial matters without the need for a final hearing. Should the final hearing go ahead make sure all relevant financial information is up to date, has been disclosed and the orders you seek are clearly stated with the specific amounts noted down.
I hope this helps and good luck!
Best wishes
Marilyn
Anthony Bilmes on September 17, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Dear Marilyn
There is an unavoidable tension between the Judge at an FDR and the role of mediator. One of the bars to a fair outcome is the fact that the Judge’s sketch of a likely litigated outcome frequently destroys the chances of a negotiated settlement. Good mediators should encourage parties and their advisers to seek a mutual solution not encourage them to adopt the mediator’s views.
The solution is to adopt the civil mediation model with its very high success rate, speed and economy and which can lead to a consent Order which the Court can be asked to approve on paper with no Court appointments at all.
Best wishes
Anthony
Anonymous on September 20, 2012 at 1:11 pm
I read the blog regarding this issue with alot of interest. I’m personally going through a similar financial dispute in high court where i am the husband seeking a fair settlement.
What is underestimated and seems not to get talked about enough is the blatent manipulation and lies on their own form-e and unwilling to disclose or manipulate the truth. Even in the light of documentary truth which in many cases is under imerman ruling will the more wealthy partner seek to delay to financially destroy the less the weaker party.
In many cases unless you have really good representation then it would be a waste of time fighting a more wealthy partner because of the quality of lawyer/barrister. There are also parties which have relative wealth issues where both don’t sit on the poverty line as such but yet typical situation still remains a huge issue on costs.
The courts need to get grip of the changing economy and deal with these issues fairly regarding husband or wife equally.
My advice to a less fortunate party is to stick to your principles of “Seeking Justice”, this is the most powerful weapon you will ever have. You simply in your heart have to be in it for justice and not greed to wear this halo through a court case. Always remember that lawyers/barristers are working citizens of this country to and work for living.
Mrs S Logan on January 25, 2013 at 4:01 pm
I and my ex have had the first appointment and have a date for the FDR. After the first appointment the court issued an order for the matrimonial home in which my ex lives and will not allow me access to be jointly marketed and sold. My ex is refusing to do this. We were married for over 40 years and both work although he is claiming he will have to retire on the grounds of ill-health. How will this be resolved if my ex continues to refuse to sell?
Marilyn Stowe on January 28, 2013 at 11:20 am
Hi
In reality should this be a problem if an estate agent is doing the work? If it becomes a problem you can apply to the court to alter the position. Keep a log of all issues that arise.
Regards
Marilyn
Mrs S Logan on January 29, 2013 at 10:14 am
This is a problem – despite the court order my ex refuses to allow an estate agent into the house to value it let alone put it on the market and the court has no power to compel him -possesion is 10 10ths of the law in this instance. As with all the stories on the blog the law is sadly lacking.
Marilyn Stowe on January 29, 2013 at 10:49 am
Dear Sue
There is a lot the court can do if there is an order for sale. You can go back to court and ask for sole conduct of the sale explaining all the difficulties you are experiencing and how he is deliberately frustrating the sale. You can ask the court for specific further directions about the sale of the property, eg the appointment of your nominated estate agent and to order your husband to permit entry to the property of estate agent and potential purchasers. If he continues to be unreasonable you can apply for a penal notice and his commital to prison and even ask for him to be removed from the property.
Regards
Marilyn
Mrs S Logan on February 2, 2013 at 10:36 am
Thanks for advice however all too expensive for me to follow. I echo the observations of the anonymous blog 20th September. Be warned there is little to no equality in financial dispute resolution & definitely do not be honest on the form.
Jarik on March 3, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Marilyn,
Thank you so much for you blog. I wonder if you can give me a bit of advice.
Been married for 11 years and have an 11 year old child. Our only asset is our home which is now on the market as we both agreed to it. We were both unemployed for about a year but my ex husband now has a job and only started last month. I am still unemployed. We both have about £10 each of debts, separately.
We have both agreed to mediation and hopefully sort out the financial split before the FDR to avoid court fees.
We have agreed our child will live with me and my ex would see her every other weekend and as he wishes.
We have our FDR next month. My question is what is a fair split of the asset. It is probably going to be about 150k. He wants a 60/40 in my favour but I feel I should have more. I don’t think he has any other asset but to be honest I really don’t care and I am not asking for spousal maintenance. I am only going to ask for child maintenance. I hope to get a job when this is all settled. I have been overwhelmed with the divorce, hence the reason I have not been able to get a job.
Please advice.
NB
I incurred about £5k legal fees which are on my credit card. Can I ask for this to be paid as well from the sale proceeds.
Peter smith on April 13, 2013 at 6:34 pm
I need to make a financial offer to my ex wife prior to final hearing. Any comments you can give on what a judge would see as an acceptable offer would be welcome.
Our case
We have a 7 year old son my wife took without the courts, her solicitors or my knowledge to live in 30 miles away. I see him half the holidays and alternate weekends.
There are 3 properties (FMH, my buy to let I had 9 years prior to marriage and meeting her, and a negative equity buy to let
-£20k)
The total ‘POT’ is about £330k
I was thinking of a 60 / 40 split
Proposed offer:
Half difference between pensions £16k approx
All equity in my flat from sale £125k approx
16k savings (Mostly derived from renting my flat)
Ex to keep her pension
Me to take on FMH (equity £116k)Where I still live that she left
Me to take negative equity property -£20k (rental income -£200 p/m)
She is a senior University lecturer/qualified lead youth worker and trained councillor and works 4 or 5 days a week.
She earns £2068 inc CSA & Child B.
Q: Will a judge see that I am trying to offer as much as possible and be reasonable?
Q: Can you point in the direction for advice on an acceptable split?
Q: Do you have any suggestions re acceptable split?
Marilyn Stowe on April 16, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Dear Peter
Without full information I cant give you any specific advise. If thats what you want then I will need to see both Forms E and disclosure thereafter and you can arrange a telephone con with me but you will be charged for it.
Guidelines. Read Section 25 MCA 1973. Consider your respective reasonable needs in particular, housing and income for both of you and your son.
How do you split all the capital?
50/50 is a starting point but how is that impacted by needs?To what extent then can you sideline pre acquired assets?
Maintenance – Will you need to pay some to your wife and if so how much and for how long?
Regards
Marilyn