ex refusing to take maintainence payments

kevin137

The problem with divorce settlements, is, by consent you can agree to wave certain aspects of your liability through an agreement to hand over assets... So if you own a house outright, this can be transferred into an ex's name to negate the child support as an example. This does not however stop the ex from then initiating a claim 1 year and 1 day later.

The legal implications of this are far reaching. Meaning you pay twice. OR you have to go back to court to try and get the money back from the initial settlement, which would be extremely hard as it is by AGREEMENT and authorised by the court...

So you pay twice.

If you go to the CSA before any divorce proceedings, then it is a simple division of assets, as you have already taken the action to provide for the children. And as such, the court cannot or should not allow a parent to remain in the family home without making financial recompense for your half.

Does that make it any clearer...?

johnnyl

kevin137 wrote: »

The problem with divorce settlements, is, by consent you can agree to wave certain aspects of your liability through an agreement to hand over assets... So if you own a house outright, this can be transferred into an ex's name to negate the child support as an example. This does not however stop the ex from then initiating a claim 1 year and 1 day later.

The legal implications of this are far reaching. Meaning you pay twice. OR you have to go back to court to try and get the money back from the initial settlement, which would be extremely hard as it is by AGREEMENT and authorised by the court...

So you pay twice.

If you go to the CSA before any divorce proceedings, then it is a simple division of assets, as you have already taken the action to provide for the children. And as such, the court cannot or should not allow a parent to remain in the family home without making financial recompense for your half.

Does that make it any clearer...?

It does, it just seems a ludicrous situation. I thought the CSA are there to chase people who dont pay. In my case I could pay via the court then for some reason pay via the CSA a year later unless I chase the CSA :rotfl:

So basically, if Im gonna go down the divorce route sort the child maintainence out first via the CSA. This will then be counted (or child maitainence discounted) in the divorce proceedings.

DUTR

johnnyl wrote: »

Probably an odd thread this.

Some of you may remember me asking a few weeks ago a host of questions regarding maintainence payments.

One of the pieces of advice was that since I have moved out, shift the direct debits and bills into the ex wifes name (she can not claim tax credits etc as a single person). This however leaves me paying nothing.

To some this may sound great, but she has chosen this route herself. She cancelled everything she could. What are the consequences of this for me? She is refusing to take any money, Ive asked repeatedly for details so I can set up a BACS and at least pay the child maintainence bit as calculated by the CSA website.

Im suspicious now that this money will accumulate, she can get half as per a divorce and then claim child maintainence backdated thus resulting in me paying more. How doers it work and what can I do.

I can not see logically why she would do this?

Why not open a CSA case yourself?

johnnyl

DUTR wrote: »

Why not open a CSA case yourself?

Because I thought that they take a proportion (or could in the future).

If Im gonna get done for money I'd at least like it all to go to my kids rather than the CSA take a cut for their "service". That was my reasoning, I dont know if the operate like that.

Also with the CSA its a fixed amount, whereas the alternate way involves negotiation and trading things off against maintainence (equity in house etc etc) ...I think

cheers for the replies. It seems like the way to go is to involve the CSA and take the pain but at least then I know Im covered.

kevin137

It simplifies things in many ways, CSA is then taken care of, and you have NO reason to pay for housing etc...! As the payments to them are supposed to be your share of this for the children.

Divorce is a funny thing, but it is roughly 50% of any assets achieved during the marriage. So if you owned a property before, then she would get a reduction, if you bought it together, then she would get 50% less any deposit paid.

Personal belongings are easy. Furniture etc, it is far better to just allow that to be kept by the childs mother, it is after all used by your child/ren so is better they do not go without.

The next thing is pension, if you have one, that can be taken into account against equity if you have and she doesn't... Unfair i think, but that is how it is...

And the CM well get in to the CSA before it gets to divorce, then they can't involve that...

If you don't, and let it go to the divorce proceedings, you could well end up paying a mortgage on a hues that you don't live in, unable to take equity out of it to buy somewhere yourself and not be able to sell until your children are 19. If you choose to go CSA, then the house would have to be sold or her buy you out. And as i have said previously, if the court make an order, and equity is taken into account in the divorce for CM then a year later she could still go to the CSA and you pay AGAIN... The only thing you could do is go back to court to get it corrected, and that is both expensive and not guaranteed...!

WYSPECIAL

A court can't take equity into account in lieu of CM. If they include CM in a consent order it will be a regular amount at regular (usually monthly) intervals.

PWC may get a greater than 50% share of the assets if there are children involved as the first priority of the court will be housing the children. They also take into account income and earning capacity.

johnnyl

kevin137 wrote: »

Personal belongings are easy. Furniture etc, it is far better to just allow that to be kept by the childs mother, it is after all used by your child/ren so is better they do not go without....!

oh aye...I have no wish to argue about anything in the house. I will simply re-buy it now and that limits what cashI hve to split anyway.

kevin137 wrote: »

The next thing is pension, if you have one, that can be taken into account against equity if you have and she doesn't... Unfair i think, but that is how it is.......!

Can this be traded off against the house / equity. ie) I keep this and you get that...

And the CM well get in to the CSA before it gets to divorce, then they can't involve that...

kevin137 wrote: »

If you don't, and let it go to the divorce proceedings, you could well end up paying a mortgage on a hues that you don't live in, unable to take equity out of it to buy somewhere yourself and not be able to sell until your children are 19. If you choose to go CSA, then the house would have to be sold or her buy you out. And as i have said previously, if the court make an order, and equity is taken into account in the divorce for CM then a year later she could still go to the CSA and you pay AGAIN... The only thing you could do is go back to court to get it corrected, and that is both expensive and not guaranteed...!

well what I was planning nowis as follows.

Involve the CSA, I end up paying ~600 per month

Go for the divorce, my "win scenario" here is paying 50% of the mortgage (300 per month) but no more. This is essentially maintaining her because it provides a roof over her head and I am footing a bill that she would have to pay if she moved elsewhere. Under these circumstances could I keep my 50% split of the equity or does divorce mean that it actually has to be bought out / sold (dont really want that for the kids and the market isnt great now)

Alternatively, could I sign my half of the equity over without a buy out from her, however this stops me from having to pay that half of the mortgage to "maintain her"

Sorry if these are silly questions. I just dont know how it works.

WYSPECIAL

But you could be paying £300 for the mortgage but still have to pay CM at CSA rates.

for more details on how things might get split in a divorce check out www.wikivorce.com if you post details on their forum you will get all sorts of advise. See you there!

johnnyl

WYSPECIAL wrote: »

But you could be paying £300 for the mortgage but still have to pay CM at CSA rates.

for more details on how things might get split in a divorce check out www.wikivorce.com if you post details on their forum you will get all sorts of advise. See you there!

that would be fine. 900 in total and I earn about 2400 - 2500.

Is the concept of not selling the house now "do able" and trading this off against what it cost for me to maintain her. I earn a decent salary and that 600 - 900 figure is ok by me. Not so much for her sake but the kids who get to lead the same life they always have.

shall have a look at that site, cheersall for the responses

Mojisola

johnnyl wrote: »

that would be fine. 900 in total and I earn about 2400 - 2500.

Is the concept of not selling the house now "do able" and trading this off against what it cost for me to maintain her. I earn a decent salary and that 600 - 900 figure is ok by me. Not so much for her sake but the kids who get to lead the same life they always have.

shall have a look at that site, cheersall for the responses

It may be okay for now but the break-up is very recent. Think a few years down the line - maybe you will meet someone else, maybe even have another child - don't over commit yourself now at the risk of your future. What will happen if your ex moves a new partner into the house that you're still paying for?

It's not good for her to be financially dependent on you for the roof over her head.

After a break-up children's lives will be different. You can't run two households on the same money as one. You need somewhere to live so that the children can spend time with you. If you're going to separate, you have to start to cut the ties.