Lies lies lies

GiantTCR

zagfles said:

Yeah, one's discussing a named person, another's anonymously discussing an unidentified person. You've been around here long enough, haven't you noticed it's quite common to discuss "friend's" or even husbands/wives/parents etc on here? Have a look at the top page of threads on this board, just the headings. People discussing their friend, mum, dad, grandma etc.

Why are you even replying to this thread if you think that's so wrong to discuss other peoples' relationships in social media?

I wonder if the replies from some users would have been different if I had portrayed the situation the other way around (husband is the one telling lies...wife is the one making more money...).

Which, by the way, could very well be the case. I'm telling the story by leaving out and switching some details, just to make it less recognisable. Although nothing relevant has been omitted. My friend may be a woman, and her husband is the one who is telling all the lies to squeeze more money out of my friend.

Also I don't understand why some folks started to focus on the 50/50 split of assets when this particular had already been agreed. All I asked was how would the lies play in court and if one party (the one in a worse off financial position) could get away with it and with a bigger financial settlement even if they lied.

Anyways, every opinion is welcome and helpful, thanks.

Pollycat

GiantTCR said:

zagfles said:

Yeah, one's discussing a named person, another's anonymously discussing an unidentified person. You've been around here long enough, haven't you noticed it's quite common to discuss "friend's" or even husbands/wives/parents etc on here? Have a look at the top page of threads on this board, just the headings. People discussing their friend, mum, dad, grandma etc.

Why are you even replying to this thread if you think that's so wrong to discuss other peoples' relationships in social media?

I wonder if the replies from some users would have been different if I had portrayed the situation the other way around (husband is the one telling lies...wife is the one making more money...).

Absolutely not.
Not from me.

Spendless

GiantTCR said:

zagfles said:

Yeah, one's discussing a named person, another's anonymously discussing an unidentified person. You've been around here long enough, haven't you noticed it's quite common to discuss "friend's" or even husbands/wives/parents etc on here? Have a look at the top page of threads on this board, just the headings. People discussing their friend, mum, dad, grandma etc.

Why are you even replying to this thread if you think that's so wrong to discuss other peoples' relationships in social media?

I wonder if the replies from some users would have been different if I had portrayed the situation the other way around (husband is the one telling lies...wife is the one making more money...).

Which, by the way, could very well be the case. I'm telling the story by leaving out and switching some details, just to make it less recognisable. Although nothing relevant has been omitted. My friend may be a woman, and her husband is the one who is telling all the lies to squeeze more money out of my friend.

Also I don't understand why some folks started to focus on the 50/50 split of assets when this particular had already been agreed. All I asked was how would the lies play in court and if one party (the one in a worse off financial position) could get away with it and with a bigger financial settlement even if they lied.

Anyways, every opinion is welcome and helpful, thanks.

Nope not from me either. My reply remains the same. For all I know you have switched the genders around. I even wondered if you might be talking about a same sex couple but I never asked cos that's also irrelevant and doesn't change what I've said.

The reason I've focussed on the 50/50 split is because it's usually only the starting point. Often if there's child/ren involved and one parent has had to take lower earning jobs or a career break  etc because of it the court takes that into account and awards that party more. You've put it's a verbal agreement at mediation. You've said husband earns more. You've said husband doesn't want to go to court. That's why I'm suspicious. If you're being vague and it's actually been decided by solicitors this is the far split then I'd be less inclined to think the way I have. 

[Deleted User]

My opinion would be exactly the same GiantTCR said:

zagfles said:

Yeah, one's discussing a named person, another's anonymously discussing an unidentified person. You've been around here long enough, haven't you noticed it's quite common to discuss "friend's" or even husbands/wives/parents etc on here? Have a look at the top page of threads on this board, just the headings. People discussing their friend, mum, dad, grandma etc.

Why are you even replying to this thread if you think that's so wrong to discuss other peoples' relationships in social media?

I wonder if the replies from some users would have been different if I had portrayed the situation the other way around (husband is the one telling lies...wife is the one making more money...).

Which, by the way, could very well be the case. I'm telling the story by leaving out and switching some details, just to make it less recognisable. Although nothing relevant has been omitted. My friend may be a woman, and her husband is the one who is telling all the lies to squeeze more money out of my friend.

Also I don't understand why some folks started to focus on the 50/50 split of assets when this particular had already been agreed. All I asked was how would the lies play in court and if one party (the one in a worse off financial position) could get away with it and with a bigger financial settlement even if they lied.

Anyways, every opinion is welcome and helpful, thanks.

No my opinion would have been the same, husband or wife. I have no personal experience of the court, but I'm pretty sure that any lies will be recognised as such ( or at least as exaggerations) unless the liar is very skilled.  The focus should, I hope, be on the best interests of the child, eg what will be the best place to live, with either party, to avoid disruption to schooling, access to friends, which parent is best able to keep the continuity of those without either losing the ability to work and support the child and themself, and also who will look after the child when one or other parent is working ( school holidays, when the child is ill etc). It may be that the higher earner has less time or a stricter work schedule etc, and may also depend on the age of the child and if old enough to state it, their preference? 

pinkshoes

This seems to have become a competition on who can quote the most quotes...

If the husband's salary is higher than the wife's then perhaps let her have more than 50% of the assets? Especially if she took any time out from her career to raise the child and therefore lowering her earning potential.

With the equity and their individual salaries, is it feasible for them BOTH to purchase a property in the area? e.g. if the wife could only raise a mortgage of £100k and him £200k, and there was £150 equity in the house, then is it feasible to give the wife £125k and him £25k and then they both buy a property for £225k? If it's only 1 child then they only need 2 bedrooms. 

If she is lying then he just needs to ignore her as it's not worth getting into a slanging match. 

I suggest he records every conversation they have from now on then types up a manuscript of the conversation, just in case it is needed for future reference.

tooldle

Its good the couple have been using mediation and trying to resolve matters. I guess what is missing for the OP, is what the 'wife' understood the agreement to be. There can be an unintended difference between what message is spoken,  and what message is received. Most of us have probably experienced this in our own lives where a colleague or friend gets the wrong end of the stick, despite believing ourselves to have clearly stated our story or intention. 
50:50 can mean whatever the individuals define it to mean. One party might feel manipulated or bullied on discovering their partners intentions were not as they thought. 
This is why solicitors are helpful. No assumptions or emotions in a legal agreement. 
A friend of mine split custody 50:50 with his ex wife. Their assets were also split 50:50. Child maintenance was paid as one party earned considerably more than the other. To this couple 50:50 meant putting them both in an equal position, going forwards.  The wife was the one paying the child maintenance. 

tightauldgit

Spendless said:

GiantTCR said:

zagfles said:

Yeah, one's discussing a named person, another's anonymously discussing an unidentified person. You've been around here long enough, haven't you noticed it's quite common to discuss "friend's" or even husbands/wives/parents etc on here? Have a look at the top page of threads on this board, just the headings. People discussing their friend, mum, dad, grandma etc.

Why are you even replying to this thread if you think that's so wrong to discuss other peoples' relationships in social media?

I wonder if the replies from some users would have been different if I had portrayed the situation the other way around (husband is the one telling lies...wife is the one making more money...).

Which, by the way, could very well be the case. I'm telling the story by leaving out and switching some details, just to make it less recognisable. Although nothing relevant has been omitted. My friend may be a woman, and her husband is the one who is telling all the lies to squeeze more money out of my friend.

Also I don't understand why some folks started to focus on the 50/50 split of assets when this particular had already been agreed. All I asked was how would the lies play in court and if one party (the one in a worse off financial position) could get away with it and with a bigger financial settlement even if they lied.

Anyways, every opinion is welcome and helpful, thanks.

Nope not from me either. My reply remains the same. For all I know you have switched the genders around. I even wondered if you might be talking about a same sex couple but I never asked cos that's also irrelevant and doesn't change what I've said.

The reason I've focussed on the 50/50 split is because it's usually only the starting point. Often if there's child/ren involved and one parent has had to take lower earning jobs or a career break  etc because of it the court takes that into account and awards that party more. You've put it's a verbal agreement at mediation. You've said husband earns more. You've said husband doesn't want to go to court. That's why I'm suspicious. If you're being vague and it's actually been decided by solicitors this is the far split then I'd be less inclined to think the way I have. 

The idea that solicitors are in a better position than the couple to decide what is a fair split seems like nonsense to me. Nor can they decide what's fair. The reason why mediation is useful is to try to avoid it becoming a legal battle with solicitors - who do not have any interest in getting a 'fair split'. The role of the mediator should be to help the couple come to a compromise that they can both accept. Part of this is to advise both on what the law says and what outcome might be likely in a court. The role of a solicitor is to maximise the outcome in favour of their client and their motivation is to maximise the outcome in favour of themselves through fees.

Given the costs of solicitors, unless a divorce is high value, very complicated or highly contentious then I would say that any solicitor who doesn't advise you that agreeing a compromise at mediation is preferable to arguing it through a court is mis-advising you. 

elsien

Sibling ended up paying 60K in legal fees after the partner refused mediation around finances and child contact. 

It really is best to sort things out amicably if at all possible. Unfortunately that isn’t always the case. 

diystarter7

Skimmed through this thread.
I thought posters were trying to help the OP help their friend and not have a contest between themselves who is right/wrong, etc.

Pollycat

diystarter7 said:

Skimmed through this thread.
I thought posters were trying to help the OP help their friend and not have a contest between themselves who is right/wrong, etc.

It's hard to offer help/advice with such vague information, unanswered questions and a viewpoint very biased indicated in the first 3 words typed.
What help/advice would you offer?