Separated, how much should I provide?

Reams

JackRS wrote: »

Well it's a long way back but I originally was paying 1000 plus car but her solicitor issued a maintenance pending suit court summons. So I was advised to increase it to 1150 to avoid the case and the fees of around £4K...

So up to now been paying 1150 as voluntary maintenance so when I reduce it to CSA it's going to get nasty even though she still gets the car. Need to work on wording the email and explaining to my daughter what I'm doing and why.

Are you taxed on the perk of ex having the car?

Reams

gonzo127 wrote: »

this 'danger' could surely be minimised with a add on stating the 'support' for the adult children would continue for x amount of years, or until they are earning x amount a year, or until they have a full time job or .......what ever is accetpable to Jack

i just think that reducing the maintenance to ex will be easier to explain by using the same amount of money directed to the children - who no longer live with her - to allow them to be more independant, and easier to reduce to kids as they get a bit older than trying to reduce it to a bitter ex wife

I think it's dodgy making promises of helping for the next whatever number of years, none of us know what lies ahead. Just to tell your kids that you'll help if able to is enough in my opinion.

justme111

Bonfire , now jack pays like 2000 in maintenance , car and cs. It gives 1000 for each child. I do not think it is right. I am sure jack will determine the right amount right , its just that giving this amount does not seem right. And will be difficult to reduce in the future as they may perceive him as a bad guy then although I agree with gonzo and suggested the same , as it is lesser of two evils and gets him off the hook ofaintenance for her.

Reams

I'm damned if I'd send money for my son to my ex wife even though he lives with his grandparents. How do you know how much if any, of that money she's passing on to them?
For all you are spending JRS on solicitors, you could well afford a barrister instead and they bill by the day in advance so no nasty surprises at the end of the month. Solicitors are great for certain things of course such as contracts, conveyancing etc., I just don't think they are suited to anything other than a basic divorce. It's only when you meet a barrister do you realise how little the solicitor has actually done.


The subject of your wife moving to a more expensive area? I take it you have been asked to provide details of what you consider to be suitable housing for her, and that is not a one bed flat as someone suggested. Courts try to see the outcome as being fair to both parties and that means her lifestyle should not be dramatically worse and she needs somewhere for the children to stay as you do also. A modest 3 bed house each should suffice, but I haven't read the whole thread so have no idea of money in the joint pot. Another point about decent housing for her is the effect on the children, as they don't want to see their mother in dire straits, which would rebound on you too.
As far as I know, the properties you forward on her behalf would be in the area she has been living in, not the more expensive South. It works the other way too. My barrister gave my ex a rollicking in the ante room where it was all being thrashed out because he had forwarded the most unsuitable properties for me.


Maintenance for life is to be avoided at all costs as you know. Courts always aim for a clean break and I saw that she could be a teaching assistant? So perhaps offer maintenance for a fixed period, say four years to give her time to update her skills, retrain or whatever.
With life maintenance, she could get a variation back in court every time you have a pay rise. You of course could do the same if you changed jobs to a lower salary, but you need a clean break.
I rather think a barrister would frown on the car lease for her. It's binding you together and they don't like it. Has your solicitor not said that?
Her future inheritance? Please don't even mention it, you will look foolish. No way would it even be considered. In the highly unlikely event you will be paying joint lives maintenance and she inherits, or within the four years I suggested, you could of course go to court and apply for a downward variance in how much you pay her, but even then as you hadn't benefitted from that inheritance you'd be on shaky ground.


As I said, I haven't read the thread just bits, so sorry if I've repeated what others have posted and I have said before to take all advice with a large pinch of salt including mine, as it's only an opinion from experience and things change rapidly in law. It only takes one case in the High Court to change things and my divorce came just before the mediation process was introduced.
You also have quite a fan club here who rather skate over such things as your skewed figures you gave recently, but I noticed them and you the figures man!


As I've said, all in my opinion only, except see a barrister. Just speak to one and you will wonder why you ever employed a solicitor.


I was shocked at a mention earlier that this is two years on? If that is not a typo, ask yourself how your solicitor has progressed your case and at what cost?

Thumper7

Reams wrote: »

I'm damned if I'd send money for my son to my ex wife even though he lives with his grandparents. How do you know how much if any, of that money she's passing on to them?
For all you are spending JRS on solicitors, you could well afford a barrister instead and they bill by the day in advance so no nasty surprises at the end of the month. Solicitors are great for certain things of course such as contracts, conveyancing etc., I just don't think they are suited to anything other than a basic divorce. It's only when you meet a barrister do you realise how little the solicitor has actually done.


The subject of your wife moving to a more expensive area? I take it you have been asked to provide details of what you consider to be suitable housing for her, and that is not a one bed flat as someone suggested. Courts try to see the outcome as being fair to both parties and that means her lifestyle should not be dramatically worse and she needs somewhere for the children to stay as you do also. A modest 3 bed house each should suffice, but I haven't read the whole thread so have no idea of money in the joint pot. Another point about decent housing for her is the effect on the children, as they don't want to see their mother in dire straits, which would rebound on you too.
As far as I know, the properties you forward on her behalf would be in the area she has been living in, not the more expensive South. It works the other way too. My barrister gave my ex a rollicking in the ante room where it was all being thrashed out because he had forwarded the most unsuitable properties for me.


Maintenance for life is to be avoided at all costs as you know. Courts always aim for a clean break and I saw that she could be a teaching assistant? So perhaps offer maintenance for a fixed period, say four years to give her time to update her skills, retrain or whatever.
With life maintenance, she could get a variation back in court every time you have a pay rise. You of course could do the same if you changed jobs to a lower salary, but you need a clean break.
I rather think a barrister would frown on the car lease for her. It's binding you together and they don't like it. Has your solicitor not said that?
Her future inheritance? Please don't even mention it, you will look foolish. No way would it even be considered. In the highly unlikely event you will be paying joint lives maintenance and she inherits, or within the four years I suggested, you could of course go to court and apply for a downward variance in how much you pay her, but even then as you hadn't benefitted from that inheritance you'd be on shaky ground.


As I said, I haven't read the thread just bits, so sorry if I've repeated what others have posted and I have said before to take all advice with a large pinch of salt including mine, as it's only an opinion from experience and things change rapidly in law. It only takes one case in the High Court to change things and my divorce came just before the mediation process was introduced.
You also have quite a fan club here who rather skate over such things as your skewed figures you gave recently, but I noticed them and you the figures man!


As I've said, all in my opinion only, except see a barrister. Just speak to one and you will wonder why you ever employed a solicitor.


I was shocked at a mention earlier that this is two years on? If that is not a typo, ask yourself how your solicitor has progressed your case and at what cost?

One of the most sensible posts I have read in a long time

ampersand

...and even more sensible to find time to read whole Thread steadily.

'I was shocked at a mention earlier that this is two years on? If that is not a typo, ask yourself how your solicitor has progressed your case and at what cost?'

-which is what that part of that post highlighted.
On page 1 you can see when this Thread started.
Take care, Jack.

justme111

4 years you say ? Well , 2 of them already gone

JackRS

Reams wrote: »

Are you taxed on the perk of ex having the car?

No it's monthly fee deducted from my salary which includes insurance, and road tax. This why it's a reasonably high monthly fee, you can have 12000 miles a year or 18000 miles a year. She has 18000 miles a year due to mileage explained previously.

JackRS

Reams wrote: »

You also have quite a fan club here who rather skate over such things as your skewed figures you gave recently, but I noticed them and you the figures man!

Thanks Reams, good to get your take on things having been through it before. I will answer your other points another time as not enough time just now.

Can you just clarify what you meant by 'skewed figures you gave recently' I'd like to correct any mistakes I've made. I don't remember claiming to be a figures man? I may have said I'm better at math’s than English but that doesn't mean I'm brilliant at math’s?

duchy

I think you WILL find it's a perk you pay tax on Jack. At the end of each tax year your company should issue a document showing this (and health cover etc) has a tax liability.

Why do people write great long posts full of advice when they haven't bothered reading the thread ?