Divorce - consent order - unequal but agreed. Formality or subject to scrutiny?

Mojisola

McAnniee wrote: »

For example, we always kept 'separate' finances and contributed about equally until a few years ago when, with the full agreement of my spouse I bought a property in my name only, with my funds (They signed the "no financial claim on the property" form fully willingly, but it wasn't a post-nup, just an "order of ??? trust deed??" that the mortgage company requires).

We lived together but it was funded only by myself as my spouse gave up work then as I earned enough.

McAnniee wrote: »

Hi, it sounds like you have some knowledge/experience of this @Mojisola ?

There are much more knowledgeable people on here than me - it was just from a common sense viewpoint.

TBagpuss' post covers anything else I would add - apart from the fact that a decent solicitor should be able to give you a clear explanation of how to set out your (plural) reasoning.

Has your spouse got an independent solicitor?

TBagpuss wrote: »

You can reduce the risk of the court rejecting the order by explaining why it is fair - there is a space on the 'Statement of Information' form for any other information, and you can set out that you kept your finances separate during the relationship, that the 2nd property was bought in your sole name and without any contribution etc. (If the box isn't large enough then you can continue on a separate bit of paper)

The Judge can't substitute a different order, they can only approve or reject the one you've agreed on. If they reject it that will usually be by way of a letter - effectively saying "the Judge queries why x is fair/reasonable" so you can then write back with an explanation.

Sometimes, particularly if the person getting the 'bad' deal doesn't have a solicitor acting for them, the Judge may require that you go to court for a short hearing, so that he or she can hear for themself that that person understands and is happy with the deal.

McAnniee

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

But I have to wonder why on earth the party looking at receiving c.15% would agree to this split. Unless you're talking about 15% of millions of course, where the amount is so sizeable it hardly matters.

That aside, a 17 year marriage is a reasonable length to believe that you have both contributed to it significantly, in one way or another - financials only being one component. So I like to think the courts wouldn't support such an unfair distribution.

Why are you not looking at a more equal settlement?

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Separate finances doesn't mean anything when considering the split of matrimonial assets though. 50/50 is the starting point, regardless of how you've managed your daily affairs.

Future earnings will be taken into account, so the split is often weighed more in favour of the lower earning spouse, more often than not the female party. So if this is the case AND the proposed split favours the man (assuming it's a cohabiting relationship), the judge is likely to take a very dim view of the proposal - beware!

It's not "Millions". Total pot £300k max, more like £250k.

We both contributed equally (give or take) and saved accordingly, until a few years ago when I came into money from family and then could put up a deposit for a property. I could have before that, but was very risk averse and wanted to have many savings behind me and take out part of that. Then I came into £35k from my Dad.

I've always saved up money with a long standing view to buy a house (and spouse would agree with that) spouse was happy to rent as far as it went.

We'd been screwed over by previous landlords so I hastened to be able to buy. We both then benefited from that.

McAnniee

Mojisola wrote: »

Has your spouse got an independent solicitor? [/COLOR]

I don't know if they have yet, but I have suggested/recommended it, for the reasons that the court process will likely want to see that a solicitor has had sight of it, etc. Given the financial situation I even offered to pay the fees (off the books if needed) for an independently chosen solicitor (within reason) with no strings. I am a strong believer in justice and fairness.

McAnniee

Future earnings - Spouse's will likely be less than mine, but that's because of choices made with discussion during the relationship e.g. I invested many hours taking professional certifications in my "at home" hours while spouse watched Netflix, wrote poetry, etc.

I gave up my leisure time while my spouse didn't have to because I agreed to provide everything (until they decided to moved on....) and went through rubbish times with bosses etc while they didn't have to worry because I would take care of everything.

Mojisola

McAnniee wrote: »

I don't know if they have yet, but I have suggested/recommended it, for the reasons that the court process will likely want to see that a solicitor has had sight of it, etc. Given the financial situation I even offered to pay the fees (off the books if needed) for an independently chosen solicitor (within reason) with no strings. I am a strong believer in justice and fairness.

I think it would dubious if the person accepting less hadn't received independent advice.

Of course, when that happens, the advice may be to go for a higher percentage of the assets.

swingaloo

I think your last post speaks volumes.

Have you managed to convince your soon to be ex that you 'deserve' more. Thats the way your post comes across.

As you say you are someone who believes in fairness and justice I am surprised that after 17 years you think 85-15 is fair whatever the reason.

McAnniee

swingaloo wrote: »

I think your last post speaks volumes.

Have you managed to convince your soon to be ex that you 'deserve' more. Thats the way your post comes across.

As you say you are someone who believes in fairness and justice I am surprised that after 17 years you think 85-15 is fair whatever the reason.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean: "Have I managed to convince them"? There wasn't any convincing needed. My Spouse was the one leaving, and volunterred a comment (to the effect of -- I don't remember the exact wording but it was essentially this) "Of course let's go our own ways with what we each have; I won't pursue you for anything and presumably you won't pursue me for anything since you're better off anyway".

That was before I had said anything at all about finances. My Spouse is in favour of the "leaving courts out of it" solution and just get the Divorce and leave the finances unofficial. I'm the one who pushed for finances to be legally agreed at all because of the risk of future complications from unscrupulous partners etc etc.

McAnniee

Mojisola wrote: »

I think it would dubious if the person accepting less hadn't received independent advice.

Of course, when that happens, the advice may be to go for a higher percentage of the assets.

Almost certainly, a solicitor would advise to go for 50/50 or something similar, especially since we don't have children. But can one 'disregard' the advice of the solicitor in that case?

Spouse has said (and I trust - call me naïve if you want but I have reasons) that even if a solicitor could legally argued this, they (Spouse) wouldn't pursue it.

swingaloo

If your spouse is happy to walk away with a 15% split then no wonder you are wanting to get it done and dusted before anyone tells them they are probably entitled to more.

I would hope a good solicitor would make them see sense.

Do you think that after 17 years that 15% is a fair figure?

t_obermory

I've recently gotten divorced and like you we had an unequal financial split that was mutually agreed. After my solicitor had sent the paperwork in the judge did send a reply questioning the uneven split but my solicitor wrote back explaining why it had been done that way and the judge rubber stamped it and we got our absolute. If you've both consulted a solicitor and neither of you are being coerced I wouldn't have thought you'd have any problems.