No conclusion at FDR, scheduled for Final Hearing

Despite the strong direction at a close friend''s FDR, a FH has been scheduled.

In a nutshell, the judge was suggesting that the ex W needs to be rehoused with the kids, and the ex H needs to pay the mortgage on the new property until ex W is able to work and pay.

The judge said that it wasn''t unreasonable for a Mesher order on the new property, with the equity split being based on each party''s contribution - ex W rejected this outright.

ex W wanted the new house to be mortgage free for her and kids to live in. This is not even possible with the finances involved.

Have forum members had experience of advice given by the judge at the FDR being polar opposite to outcome from a different judge at the FH?

Yes, it is possible for a final hearing judge to make a different finding.

Where a case is too close to call, it is a lottery to go to final hearing as the result can be very different. If a judge thinks a mesher is appropriate the settlement will be structured in a certain way i.e. parent in residence gets 60% and the outgoing partner gets a 40% chargeback.

However, if the final hearing judge decides that a mesher is undesirable s/he might decide that the property be transferred outright to the resident parent with a small lump sum to the outgoing parent (or no sum at all). Or that the property be sold and the first £x be paid to the residence parent and the remainder to be split equally (or paid to the outgoing parent).

The mesher is the key – if this is appropriate the figures can be predicted fairly accurately but all bets are off if there is no mesher. It’s like comparing apples with oranges.

Charles

There is always a risk that the outcome at FH is completely different to FDR. A court will aim for Clean Break where ever possible however if the finances arent available for a mortage free property then the stbx is going to be disappointed

The ex W did argue the case for a clean break, but the Judge pretty much said ''be practical, there are kids involved, you will always be tied together because of them''.

The ex W is arguing that the other properties that the ex H owns could be re-financed and the funds used to buy ex W a home that is mortgage free along with equity in the sale of FMH.

Ex H is argued that he could simply transfer the mortgage from the FMH to the new home, and pay the mortgage until ex W can work again in a few years - the Mesher then reflecting the contributions made.

Ex H does not have a need to be re-housed at this time.

No dice at the FDR.

if there are assets that could be used to provide a mortgage free home then potentially a judge would suggest this.

i believe the complications come from other parties owning a share of the other assets, making releasing equity from them complicated or not possible