Advice on "unreasonable behaviour" in divorce proceedings

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

So on one hand you excuse him not paying his share of the bills because he wasn't working but then overlook the financial asset & his behaviour that contradicts him being hard up enough not to afford his bills (not renting it out/selling then renting for free)?

Apparently he's okay with finances not being completely separate as long as its in his favour. He's having his spouse pay most of the bills. We're not talking about someone who's down on their luck and not a bean to their name.

Not just him; millions of people in this country. Mostly women by the way, who do not work and their partner/spouse/etc supports them.

So we should force partners into work? Being a landlord is a lot of hassle. And there’s the emotional connection to the property. Maybe it’s rent free to family because he knows they’ll look after it.

Comms69

paddy's_mum wrote: »

Within a lawful marriage, of course it's unreasonable!

There is a very old, very unpleasant term (p onc ing) when one partner begins to manipulate the money to the detriment of the other while still happily taking everything that person has to give.

If in the husband's view, the house is his and nothing to do with the wife, then surely the opposite applies equally so that her salary and assets are hers alone and nothing to do with him?

I suspect too that any divorce court judge would frown upon financial manoeuvres that leave a (potential) widow insufficiently provided for, especially in light of the inheritance laws concerning dependents.

This husband is in for some very rude shocks if he continues to "refuse to discuss it" like some Victorian rotter in a poor quality novel!

Or... he gets spousal maintenance. I mean it’s unlikely; but Then he has no income and no pension. The courts might rule the opposite way

Mojisola

Comms69 wrote: »

Not just him; millions of people in this country. Mostly women by the way, who do not work and their partner/spouse/etc supports them.

If that's the arrangement that suits the couple and both agree to it, then there's no problem.

If one is withholding finances from the other who isn't happy with the situation, there is a problem.

POPPYOSCAR

Mojisola wrote: »

If that's the arrangement that suits the couple and both agree to it, then there's no problem.

If one is withholding finances from the other who isn't happy with the situation, there is a problem.

Yes but from the OP is sounds like this has always been the situation and it is only now that the OP wants a divorce that it has become an issue.

You have to wonder why she married him in the first place.

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

Not just him; millions of people in this country. Mostly women by the way, who do not work and their partner/spouse/etc supports them.

So we should force partners into work? Being a landlord is a lot of hassle. And there’s the emotional connection to the property. Maybe it’s rent free to family because he knows they’ll look after it.

You mean millions of people who tend to be the primary carer and who tend to be stay at home through agreement with their partner? Are those people also insisting on keeping finances separate while expecting their partner to cover their share of the bills and/or sitting with a huge asset they're refusing to utilise?

So he's okay being helped financially by his wife for 13 years and okay helping out his niece for 3 years (to the financial detriment of his wife might I add)...but won't do anything to help himself and his wife?

Comms69

Mojisola wrote: »

If that's the arrangement that suits the couple and both agree to it, then there's no problem.

If one is withholding finances from the other who isn't happy with the situation, there is a problem.

Yes hence the divorce; but it’s not abuse! Come on, why does everyone have to be a victim of something?

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

You mean millions of people who tend to be the primary carer and who tend to be stay at home through agreement with their partner? Are those people also insisting on keeping finances separate while expecting their partner to cover their share of the bills and/or sitting with a huge asset they're refusing to utilise?

So he's okay being helped financially by his wife for 13 years and okay helping out his niece for 3 years (to the financial detriment of his wife might I add)...but won't do anything to help himself and his wife?

See this is the issue.

If a man says he ‘helps’ around the house, he gets crucified. It’s not helping to look after the house etc.

But here the wife is ‘helping’ her HUSBAND.

unholyangel

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Yes but from the OP is sounds like this has always been the situation and it is only now that the OP wants a divorce that it has become an issue.

You have to wonder why she married him in the first place.

I would suspect theres been a growing resentment building the last 3 years at least - when (after refusing to rent it out) he rented it to his niece for free instead of perhaps below market rent. So obviously willing to help other people out financially, just not his wife of 10 years (at the point he rented it out).

POPPYOSCAR

unholyangel wrote: »

I would suspect theres been a growing resentment building the last 3 years at least - when (after refusing to rent it out) he rented it to his niece for free instead of perhaps below market rent. So obviously willing to help other people out financially, just not his wife of 10 years (at the point he rented it out).

What is the difference of it not being rented out at all and family now living there? The end result is the same.

It would appear that she married this man who she knew was not working, knew nothing of any savings, had a house that he did not want to rent out and therefore knew her income would be required and still married him.

Love really is blind.

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

See this is the issue.

If a man says he ‘helps’ around the house, he gets crucified. It’s not helping to look after the house etc.

But here the wife is ‘helping’ her HUSBAND.

You're more blinkered than i thought if you think thats a good comparison to make. But okay, I'll bite.

The first situation is one born of centuries of sexism in which some men see housework as womens work, therefore when they do something (even if its just vacuum once in a blue moon), they feel they "help" their partner with housework, because its their partners job as a female to do it all. While, technically, its the woman who is helping the man - by doing his share of the housework.

The second has no such context. Its not seen as a mans place to pay all the bills and he's not paying most of the bills while his partner makes a token contribution and claims she "helps" him.