Ex Wife trying yet again to bleed him dry. URGENT

POPPYOSCAR

Mojisola wrote: »

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.

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_2

linclass wrote: »

Couldn't afford to pay a mortgage AND accommodation for us, Red-Squirrel,

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

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!!!

maman

linclass wrote: »

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.

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?

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

Maintenance? Oh yes....

Guest101

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

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.

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

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

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.

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

linclass wrote: »

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.

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

TBagpuss wrote: »

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.

As, I think, many of us suspected.