Unfair divorce - help needed !

TBagpuss

Are you sying that the Judge has made a final order, or that the suggestion swere made by the Judge at n FDR appointment?

If it was an FDR appointment, then the final hearing will be heard by a different Judge and that Judge will not have any information about the offers made or advicegiven at the FDR.

If it was a final hearing, then she can talk to her alwyer about whether there would be grounds to appeal the decision, but the Judge has a fairly wide discretion so to sucessfully appeal she would have to show that the judge made a significant mistake about the facts or the law, or how they applied.

The starting point is normally 50/50 and the court then has to decide whether there needs to be a variation away from that to be fair.
If your friend and her ex have similar incomes , then an equal division on the basis that he will then also be paying child support, may well be reasonable.

If your friend would rathersell the flat than remortgage then there is no reason that can't happen, she would simply pay her ex the lump sum he is due, and kep the rests of the sale proceeds

If the comments were made at n FDR then they are advice, not binding. she can make proposals to him, which might involve his having a charge back over the flat (so he gets his share when the child is older) or a sael now with a lower lump sum.

What does her solicitor advise?

The background - who left who etc, is not relavant to financial split.

If he missed deadlines then she could have asked the court for costs orders if his doing so meant that hearings swere not effecitve. Such applications are normally dealt with on the day - e.g. if the first appointment can't be used because one party has not filed their Form E, then they could be orderd to pay the other person's costs of coming to court that day. However, beyond that, it would not typically make a diference.

Momanns

Hi TBagpuss - this I think was the FDR so they have one final hearing left. The solicitors have quoted £10,000 for the hearing so I guess if they can moderate between themselves it would be preferential to both.

It's useful to know most cases are 50/50 or thereabouts even if it is "morally unfair" so to speak.

Would it be an option for my friend to accept the 50/50 house split but stay firm on the pension front? I think this is the bit she cannot grasp.

Is it also common for the judge to refer to a figure as opposed to a % amount? Again I think it would be fairer if he was awarded 50% of the actual equity minus any costs etc

humptydumptybits

I think the point with the pension is that what it is worth at the time of the divorce, what he accrues in pension after the divorce is none of her business. If he wasn't paying into a pension were they, as a couple, using that money for something else? What I mean is did she benefit in any way from that money?


I don't know about the house, people I know seem to have had the option to sell and split the proceeds or get 3 valuations and then one buy the other out. Can she get that changed if she is going to have to move as that seems more likely that the pension.


As to his payments not covering the full cost of bring up children, well they are hers as well as his so I don't see why he should have to pay 100% of the cost.


Of course she has had costs with maintaining the property but she has also had the benefit of living in it, he has been paying his share of the mortgage and also pay to live elsewhere.


As I said before the only person I know who really fought ended up no better off and the ex worse off to the detriment of the children. The only winners were the solicitors.


Are you the person getting divorced?

mattpaint

Momanns wrote: »

Thank you for the helpful replies. My thoughts are:

1) Yes she can sell and go into rental etc. That said, I guess it's the frustration of why should she come off the property market through no fault of her own. The 50/50 split for the mortgage I agree is fair but again my friend has been lumbered with additional costs (not splitting bills etc) due to his infidelity. Yes he pays the required monthly amount but does anyone believe that covers the cost of a child as it doesn't come close.

I guess in terms of the pension pot the Judge considered that when they both reached pensionable age they would no longer have dependent children. Why should she have a larger pension pot ? Assuming he pays her the required maintenance etc. - He has simply paid into a pension for a shorter period through his own choices. He will be on a decent Police pension, he has already been promoted once so his pot is likely to grow at a far higher rate than my friends. He also earns a higher salary so will be contributing a higher amount.

I was wondering what was unfair about 50/50, and I still am - In what way is this helpful? Is the mortgage the only cost associated with owning a flat? How about service charges, maintenance, upkeep. Things he has not contributed a penny towards but stands to earn an equal share?

As for the pension, I can't see what's fair about handing over part of your pension pot to a cheating ****** simply because you've paid into a pension for longer?

You tell me what's fair about marrying the guy you've been with since school to fall pregnant after the wedding to then find out he's having an affair. Then raise a child by yourself with the same guy making your life difficult just for his own amusement? Then face selling your only asset/security and moving that child which may affect schools simply because house prices/rentals have risen at an extraordinary rate over the past ten years?

You're far too involved in this situation. Take a step back.

FBaby

Divorces are rarely fair to the party who loses out the most. The pension split is what is almost always ordered, it is just very rare that it is the male partner who gets to benefit.

The sale of the flat if it means that your friend has to rent is however unusual. Most judges would want se urity for the child. Is it really the case she couldn't buy anything, or not something comparable in the same area? Is she working full time? The judge might have considered that if she did and increasing her hours were a possibility, that she could then indeed buy another flat.

Momanns

Not me getting divorced & don't feel too involved. Just trying to help a friend in a fairly desperate situation. The guy in question is nasty and has been manipulating my friend for many years so there is a group of us trying to a ) Help her move on/cope and b) Get a fair outcome from the divorce. She is a full time working mother of one having to cope with this by herself and is up against an extremely manipulative and vindictive individual so I think it's only right to be involved.

Thank you for your help - Probably should leave it there but it's been useful to get people's views

Momanns

FBaby - It's a flat in South London that was bought by two people using the Key Workers Scheme. My friend with a circa £50,000 deposit and a sole income with a dependent wouldn't be able to afford half the value of the flat unfortunately.

BoGoF

OP.....think you should stop there. Any more info and people who know the 2 parties will be able to identify them.

FBaby

Then her best argument is that she wouldn't be able to afford to rent in the area, her child would need to change schools, after school clubs and with the seperation of their parents, it would emotionally damage them. Her best argument would be to keep the flat but couldn't she afford the mortgage on her own?

mattpaint

Momanns wrote: »

FBaby - It's a flat in South London that was bought by two people using the Key Workers Scheme. My friend with a circa £50,000 deposit and a sole income with a dependent wouldn't be able to afford half the value of the flat unfortunately.

If she the key worker, or is he? I am guessing he given his job.

She will just have to sell the flat if she can't afford it.