Separated, how much should I provide?

Marisco

Happier_Me wrote: »

I have been dipping in and out of your thread for a while now. I haven't been in your situation so can't add much by way of advic but I wanted to say that I am disgusted by the demands being made by your ex. his gives us females a bad name and I can't understand how someone would expect to be 'kept' like this.

What little experience I do have is from a high earning friend who has been through a similar experience.

I would be looking to evidence lower cost 3 bed homes in areas you consider suitable for her together with modest running costs. Her claim for monthly maintenance of £1,150 and a house for £225k is simply ridiculous.

My friend agreed a much lower maintenance figure with similar co habiting rules suggested but this ended after a three year period on the basis that this gave his ex enough time to retrain into a role that could financially support her. Bear in mind that his ex has primary school age children and they share custody.

Good luck

But why???? This is the bit I don't get! Why pay her anything in maintenance, unless kids are involved, then use the CSA calc to work out a figure. When couple split up, you have to be realistic and realise that you cannot keep the same lifestyle you had before! Paying vast amounts, like Jack is doing, just prolongs this illusion that you can!! The sooner she hits reality the better IMO.

JackRS

Marisco wrote: »

I think Jack has been a "soft lad" for too long, he needs to put his foot down and say something like "right, I'll pay the mortgage 'till the house is sold, you pay the bills yourself, I'll still give the kids money (mind it wouldn't be 1k a month, you should let them get jobs like other students do to fund their lifestyles!!) When the house is sold, you can have half the equity, then that's your lot"!! If you have to give her the 55k, to make sure your pension is left alone, then do it, to get this parasite off your back!

If she wants a 200k house, then tell her she has to pay for it herself, either through getting a fantastic job, or finding another [STRIKE]mug[/STRIKE] bloke to keep her.

I'm not very clued up on legalities, but what would happen if Jack just said, "sod this, I'm not paying anything other than the mortgage anymore"? I still can't understand why the solicitors are saying he has to pay her maintenance though?

I finished paying the mortgage in 2011, so nothing to pay. What you are saying is in line with my proposal at Mediation although my offer was 1/3 of tranfer value of pension being £37K. Proposals all rejected because I wouldn't give her the capital she wanted and lifetime maintenance. Which is why we go to court on the 12 Jan. This is the next costly step is making proposals and counter proposal before the hearing. The court order for 12Jan is as follows:

kelpie35

I don't understand the legalities of all this so I am responding with little common sense I have.

I do hope Jack has now lowered his maintenance to £650 as per CSA guide lines.

DO NOT allow her legal team to intimidate or your ex to bully you any longer.

I know you have mentioned before Jack of the possibility of taking early retirement, if that is still on the cards you might be wise to do that.

I just hope that the court date of the 12th January can see an end to this almighty nightmare you are going through.

Stay strong Jack and know that you have always been honest, fair and caring.

ampersand

The fmh is mortgage-free: this misunderstanding has crept back in to colour some recent comments.
#
Ex-solicitor should task ex with finding any house that her notional earnings of £1k mthly will fund, wherever it is.

Time for Bank of Mum and Dad, wealthy in her case. Why do they not wish to support their daughter? Bank of Jack has closed down.
#
Apologies Jack, cross-posted.
#
#2033, Order point 2: what updated financial disclosures might ex conjure? [and yes, I am not being impartial]
ditto, the 'comment-free' bundle...
ditto, 'the parties up-to-date income and capital positions'...

I wish a good lump of your past legal expense had gone instead on the forensic skills of Andrew Day - and early.

justme111

Looked at her solicitor proposition again - difference between.pension.value payment is just about 20 grand (you.saying it is 30 and her saying its 50), could be agreed /compromised . House equity 50/50 - good. The only really sticking.point is maintenance while she thinks it should be basically forever I would say 3 years (2 of which will be gone by the time of court date ) would be the max Iwould agree out of court. That would be my counter proposal but depends if you think she would take it or it will be another solicitor fee for mo gain.

duchy

Bloody hell she's unbelievable.

The car presumably is an annual lease
When does it expire ?
Now you are divorced it's not a perk she is entitled to.

If there was a clear need for a car -like school runs or no public transport to her job then it could be justified. She's not working - and is applying for jobs she is unqualified for only.

As she obviously neeeeeeds a car for her hair and nail appointments you are funding you could cancel the lease and buy her a ten year old KA or similar. Obviously tax and insurance would be her responsibility.

It fits the same logic as reducing support to CSA level in that she has had ample time to adjust to her new circumstances-so now you are removing the "freebies" that were only in place for transition and XX months is plenty of time to have made transition and she has made no effort to do so-despite knowing that as of last month she would be living as a single woman with no children.
I would also be making it clear that your belief is that as your son lives with his grandparents and has for over a year you should be paying the child support to them and not his mother and would like court guidance on this. (I think this point is important as it clearly demonstrates exMrsJack's attitude towards her children and money to the court).

Basically you need to be putting your ducks in a row rather than presenting the court with an easy get out that you've paid for this stuff all this time so you may as well go on providing them.

You are aiming at presenting a clear picture of a man who has bent over backwards to help his wife in the transition of seperation and a woman whose response is consistently "Give me more". Even the most tolerant man has his limits and her refusal to apply for jobs she has appropriate qualifications or experience for is a good illustration you could use. You could present real examples of jobs as LSAs that were advertised that she didn't apply for -for example . As she has experience in this field it begs the question why didn't she.

Same with the house......she manipulated the situation for son to move south and then didn't follow him (she could have moved in with her parents and started job hunting months ago ) so funding a home should be based on her current local area as her actions imply she isn't that bothered about relocating anyway. If she wants to up-scale in location then she needs to fund that herself.

You need to present a counter to her "Poor abandoned woman" approach -and sensible and logical seems to be likely to strike a chord with a judge.

Happier_Me

Marisco wrote: »

But why???? This is the bit I don't get! Why pay her anything in maintenance, unless kids are involved, then use the CSA calc to work out a figure. When couple split up, you have to be realistic and realise that you cannot keep the same lifestyle you had before! Paying vast amounts, like Jack is doing, just prolongs this illusion that you can!! The sooner she hits reality the better IMO.

My friend also pays CSA as the kids are still young but maintenance to his ex amounts to around £300 a month. He looks after the kids 4 days out of 3 though so don't see why there is any CSA due, but I can't claim to understand the process or the logic applied by the Courts/CSA. He is a contractor earning a good amount (£550 a day plus). I don't agree with paying the ex anything but setting a timescale for maintenance payments to enable the ex to retrain was accepted by the courts in this case. This might form part of a 'sensible' counter!?

duchy

Happier_Me wrote: »

My friend also pays CSA as the kids are still young but maintenance to his ex amounts to around £300 a month. He looks after the kids 4 days out of 3 though so don't see why there is any CSA due, but I can't claim to understand the process or the logic applied by the Courts/CSA. He is a contractor earning a good amount (£550 a day plus). I don't agree with paying the ex anything but setting a timescale for maintenance payments to enable the ex to retrain was accepted by the courts in this case. This might form part of a 'sensible' counter!?

CSA is based on which parent the child resides with as well as earnings so if your friend is a high earner and "looks after" his children in their own home and doesn't have them overnight - that would make a difference. £300 is quite low for two children on the sort of earnings you quote however.

Why do parents refer to "looking after" or "babysitting" their own children anyway ?

Marisco

justme111 wrote: »

Looked at her solicitor proposition again - difference between.pension.value payment is just about 20 grand (you.saying it is 30 and her saying its 50), could be agreed /compromised . House equity 50/50 - good. The only really sticking.point is maintenance while she thinks it should be basically forever I would say 3 years (2 of which will be gone by the time of court date ) would be the max Iwould agree out of court. That would be my counter proposal but depends if you think she would take it or it will be another solicitor fee for mo gain.

But again I'll ask, why? Once a couple splits, apart from the usual house equity etc, CSA for the kids etc, the ex herself should not be entitled to anything!! I just don't get this at all. Yes, maintenance for the kids obviously, and a fair share of any equity built up in a house, but why on earth should the ex get anything else *very very puzzled* And more to the point, why on earth should she expect it????

JackRS

Marisco wrote: »

But again I'll ask, why? Once a couple splits, apart from the usual house equity etc, CSA for the kids etc, the ex herself should not be entitled to anything!! I just don't get this at all. Yes, maintenance for the kids obviously, and a fair share of any equity built up in a house, but why on earth should the ex get anything else *very very puzzled* And more to the point, why on earth should she expect it????

Frustrating as it is she has been advised that due to the length of the marriage one party should not be better off than the other, therefore they propose a maintenance level so that our individual incomes are a closer match. They justify this on her needs based on the standard of living they've been used to. However the proposal is not fair to me as she would be able to live in a location of her choice mortgage free and have £1150 coming in and a new car, even if she doesn't get a job. Nice position think we'd all like that find a part time job somewhere to top it up a bit. My problem with that proposal is I'd be paying out a big mortgage to match the same level of housing and have left the about the same as I'm paying her. Difference is if I lost my job, took early retirement etc I'd still have a mortgage to pay and nothing coming in. So with her proposal I'd happily swop places...