Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • linclass
    • By linclass 10th Jul 17, 5:46 PM
    • 186Posts
    • 74Thanks
    linclass
    Ex Wife trying yet again to bleed him dry. URGENT
    • #1
    • 10th Jul 17, 5:46 PM
    Ex Wife trying yet again to bleed him dry. URGENT 10th Jul 17 at 5:46 PM
    Hello all,
    I'm sorry to have this as an 'urgent' thread, but it's appeared as the proverbial bolt out of the blue.

    My partner's ex wife won virtually everything from my partner when she divorced him 2 years ago. Half his pension, the house and ALL it's value, and contents. He left the marriage with nothing.

    Now - she's VERY money oriented, down to the last 51p, which was the monthly increase to her half of his pension earlier this year - she sent a recorded letter demanding her share. At the end of May this year, my partner received a letter from an organisation (cannot remember the name) informing him he had a very small pension pot, total value £500. The Divorce paperwork stated that it would be a clean break, and that she would have no further monetary claims on him in future.

    She has now approached him, accusing him of hiding this pension. Well, he HASN'T tried hiding anything, because he wasn't aware of it until the letter arrived in May informing him!

    She only contacts him through his son via facebook. At the end of the communication, she confirmed her Solicitor advised her to contact him, and if my partner ignores her message, she will go back to the Solicitor and he will take the matter to court.

    My question is this. SHOULD he ignore her? WILL the matter return to court? He DID NOT hide anything, as I've said. And the whole amount is ONLY £500!!

    What should he do please?

    Thanks very much.
Page 3
    • PeacefulWaters
    • By PeacefulWaters 11th Jul 17, 9:10 PM
    • 6,697 Posts
    • 8,226 Thanks
    PeacefulWaters
    Same with the £500 what was it worth at the time of divorce?
    Originally posted by Sambella
    Half of its value at the time. Which would have grown to half its value now (unless additional contributions have been made, which seems unlikely).
    • POPPYOSCAR
    • By POPPYOSCAR 11th Jul 17, 9:21 PM
    • 10,392 Posts
    • 21,547 Thanks
    POPPYOSCAR
    It's nothing to do with the resident parent if the NRP contacts them about the child!

    It sounds as if she has either lied to the school (and they haven't asked for paperwork to prove that they shouldn't involve the father in the children's education) or she has friends in the office.
    Originally posted by Mojisola
    Also much easier for them to go along with the wishes of someone who has contact with the school on a regular basis giving them grief than the NRP who is not around most of the time.
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 11th Jul 17, 9:36 PM
    • 1,509 Posts
    • 4,054 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    Couldn't afford to pay a mortgage AND accommodation for us, Red-Squirrel,
    Originally posted by linclass
    Well, that's a shame, but then even if he'd maintained ownership he would only have been entitled to a share of the equity at the time he stopped paying the mortgage, not at the time it was sold. You can't profit from an asset if you don't contribute to it.
    • Loz01
    • By Loz01 11th Jul 17, 9:53 PM
    • 1,372 Posts
    • 2,958 Thanks
    Loz01
    Your partner must be telling SOMEONE in the family his financial business, or how else did his ex know he had a letter in the post saying he had a £500 pension pot? Tell him to stop talking to people about money!!!
    An apple a day keeps anyone away if you throw it hard enough
    • maman
    • By maman 11th Jul 17, 10:02 PM
    • 16,375 Posts
    • 97,894 Thanks
    maman
    There's more to it than I've stated here. I won't amplify on the situation, but its not good, she has come out of this very, very much better off than my partner.
    Originally posted by linclass
    I think the more we read it's obvious that there's much more to this and it's completely understandable that you keep it to yourself.

    We can't undo what's already happened. Your OH took advice and made decisions at the time of the divorce and he'll have to live with it.

    What he can do is sort out the issues with the school and work on his relationship with the children and (assuming there are no more unexpected pension pots) the finances should be sorted.
    ETA: surprised no one has asked but does he pay any maintenance (or whatever it's called) for the children?
    Last edited by maman; 11-07-2017 at 10:09 PM.
    • Sambella
    • By Sambella 11th Jul 17, 10:29 PM
    • 319 Posts
    • 301 Thanks
    Sambella
    As it’s such a small amount it’s not really worth going to court over. A judge may even dismiss it as petty especially when he hears how the finances were divided.

    I’d wait until you think she’s has spent £250 on solicitors fees before paying it.
    • linclass
    • By linclass 12th Jul 17, 8:33 AM
    • 186 Posts
    • 74 Thanks
    linclass
    Maintenance? Oh yes....
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 12th Jul 17, 9:44 AM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    Well, that's a shame, but then even if he'd maintained ownership he would only have been entitled to a share of the equity at the time he stopped paying the mortgage, not at the time it was sold. You can't profit from an asset if you don't contribute to it.
    Originally posted by Red-Squirrel
    That's not strictly true, but by the by.


    He has contributed his credit to the property and is likely therefore to not be able to purchase himself
    • TBagpuss
    • By TBagpuss 12th Jul 17, 1:55 PM
    • 5,775 Posts
    • 7,547 Thanks
    TBagpuss
    It's fairly obvious that had he been aware of this modest fund he would have disclosed it and she would have got half the value.

    Therefore if anybody goes legal he will have to pay half. Additionally, if it gets as far as a judge he will likely get clobbered with costs well in excess of the value of the fund.

    A simple covering letter with a cheque for £250 (and any loose pennies) along the lines of "this is in full and final settlement of your share of xxx pension scheme".

    Retain a copy of the letter. Photocopy the cheque too. Don't enter into any further debate on the subject.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    This is not correct.

    Normally, when a divorce order deals with pensions it specifies the fund being divided, so it would refer to (say) the Scottish Widows Pension number 1234567" , so the split relates to that pensoon only.

    If the order included clean break provisions then to change it (i.e. for the wife to claim a share of the newly discovered pension) she would have to apply for leave to appeal, t of time, against the order and reopen it.

    It is possible to appeal where the reason for the appeal is that the other party failed to give full disclosure, but permission would normally only be granted, and any appeal would only sucess, where the original outcome would have ben materially affected by the new information.

    So if the asset which had not been disclosed was a £1M pension fund, then it is likely that it would be appropriate to re-open things and allow an appeal.

    For £500? that's peanuts.

    It's unlikely she would be granted permission to appeal or succeed if she did, as it would be totally disproportionate to do so. The court fee alone would cost her more than the amounts she is claiming.

    It's up to your partner, but legally, she would get nowhere and he's free to ignore her completely.

    Did he have a solicitor ? I ask because from what you describe, it sounds as though there is a pension earmarking order rather than a pension sharing order, which is very unusual these days.


    (also, OP, you mentioned she has told the school not to give information. Unless there is a court order in place, the school has no right to withhold information from the children's father - as a parent with parental responsibility he has the right to access to information about the children from school, doctors etc. (Obviously with older children, it is appropriate to take into account the children's own wishes, and medical confidentiality would prevent information being provided where a child is 'Gillick Competent' and does not want the information to be provided.

    It may be sensible for your partner to speak directly to the school, reassure them that he does have PR and there there are no orders in place and make clear that he does want to have access to information etc. )
    • TBagpuss
    • By TBagpuss 12th Jul 17, 2:00 PM
    • 5,775 Posts
    • 7,547 Thanks
    TBagpuss
    There was still a Mortgage on the house Maman. Had he allowed her to live in the house until youngest reached age 18, HE would have had to keep up the mortgage payments. As it is, she sold the property and purchased a smaller one, thus wiping out the need for a mortgage. There was no money left over and above the cost of the new property.
    Originally posted by linclass
    That isn't normally how it works. Did / does he have a very high salary?

    Because normally what happens is if one parent stays in the house until the children leave home, either they pay the mortgage and other running costs, and the % the other parent gets back at the end of the day is based on the equity as a % of the value of the house at the time of settlement, or where the other parent continues to pay the mortgage, they then get a higher share at the end of the day to reflect their ongoing contributions. It's also quite common to have a scenario where the parent with care downsizes to a smaller, more affordable property but if that takes all the equity there is, the other parents will often have a charge back over the new house entitling hem to a lump sum once the children leave home, or alternatively, may keep other assets such as pensions to achieve a settlement which is fair over all.

    it does sound as though OP's partner either made some very bad decisions, or get very bad advice, or didn't get proper advice at all, or that there is more to this than we know.
    • maman
    • By maman 12th Jul 17, 2:53 PM
    • 16,375 Posts
    • 97,894 Thanks
    maman
    it does sound as though OP's partner either made some very bad decisions, or get very bad advice, or didn't get proper advice at all, or that there is more to this than we know.
    Originally posted by TBagpuss

    As, I think, many of us suspected.
    • Clive Woody
    • By Clive Woody 12th Jul 17, 4:19 PM
    • 4,359 Posts
    • 4,984 Thanks
    Clive Woody
    If I were the partner of the OP I would start posting some fun pictures on Facebook to stir things up.....

    • Holding a lottery ticket and a bottle of champagne
    • Posing next to a nice shiny new car at your local premium car dealership
    • Posing next to a nice big house with a SOLD sign out front.
    • Photo-shopped into holiday photos of exotic locations


    ...but then I am a bit of trouble maker
    Rugby Union - The Greatest Game
    • linclass
    • By linclass 12th Jul 17, 8:07 PM
    • 186 Posts
    • 74 Thanks
    linclass
    it does sound as though OP's partner either made some very bad decisions, or get very bad advice, or didn't get proper advice at all, or that there is more to this than we know.
    Originally posted by TBagpuss
    Hello TBagpuss, first I'd like to thank you for your very helpful advise in this matter, much appreciated. My partner only had his kids welfare at heart when that divorce was going through; he knows he should have thought it through more thoroughly, after all - it's likely the youngest would even leave home of her own accord by the time she's 18!

    I do have another question you might know the answer to; IF the Ex decides to go to her Solicitor and my partner receives a letter asking for the details of the paltry pension pot, is he obliged to offer proof? If so, it would be in the form of the letter from the company that informed him of the pension. Would he HAVE to comply? I suspect though, that any Solicitor worth their Salt would gently tell the Ex not to be daft, chasing that amount of money. ON the other hand, as spiteful as it is, I would love her to have to pay for the advice. This is the person that hasn't taken her child for teeth braces (very needed) to be fitted because of the cost.....
    • linclass
    • By linclass 12th Jul 17, 8:08 PM
    • 186 Posts
    • 74 Thanks
    linclass
    If I were the partner of the OP I would start posting some fun pictures on Facebook to stir things up.....

    • Holding a lottery ticket and a bottle of champagne
    • Posing next to a nice shiny new car at your local premium car dealership
    • Posing next to a nice big house with a SOLD sign out front.
    • Photo-shopped into holiday photos of exotic locations


    ...but then I am a bit of trouble maker
    Originally posted by Clive Woody
    Wicked sense of humour there Clive... I LIKE IT!!!!!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,284Posts Today

7,781Users online

Martin's Twitter