Enforcing Court Order for Costs

Hi,

I have recently obtained the final amended court order from the judge. In this I have been awarded 40% of my divorce costs (approx 4-5k) against my ex-wife, mainly due to her lying and non-disclosure. She also emptied our children's bank accounts to the tune of over 5k, she claims to pay her legal fees despite having received 125k from the sale of our family home. The judge has noted this saying originally she should repay this immediately but was changed under the slip rule to say she owes the children this money.

Following this original ruling back in September she has given her mother 100k towards buying a new house (long story) and is now claiming that she has no money to pay the costs and children back. I haven't received copies of the paperwork on this but it looks above board - her reason for doing this was to prevent me claiming against the lump sum via the CSA for child maintenance. She was fully aware of the order before doing this so it looks like a plain asset dumping to prevent me from having what is legally mine!

She claims she is not working and is at university this year, personally I think she is working on a contract basis and hiding it through her boyfriends company. She is living with him and has been for 18 months, despite still trying to deny it!

What is my best course of action - do I take her to court for both the costs and children's monies? She is incredibly devious and manipulative and everything up til now has been a real battle costing us both a fortune. Would be grateful for any advice.

Cheers
Richard

Hi Richard,
My understanding is that if you have to enforce a court awarded costs order...the cost of this is to be borne by the person defying the order...in your case your x...an enforcement order can impact upon the non payer for years to come in different ways....the threat of one would be a starting point.
Whats the slip rule you refer to?
Elle

Hi Elle,

Thanks for the reply.

Not sure which slip rule it was but the original text was:

AND UPON the Applicant wife having acknowledged at trial that she owes will pay or cause to be paid the sum of x to .

was changed to:

AND UPON the Applicant wife having acknowledged at trial that she owes the sum of x to .

The judge put a handwritten note "Amended under the slip rule" at the bottom of the order referring to it.

Cheers
Richard

Richard...was there a reason given for the change of wording...acknowledging a debt and offering to pay are poles apart
Elle

Hi Elle,

Not really, basically just a ploy by the ex's solicitors I think which was opposed by mine but the judge went with that. My solicitor thinks that she will be ordered to pay if we take it to court and she hasn't done voluntarily but its yet more stress and hassle to contend with.

Cheers
Richard

Richard,
Some xtbs are so immoveable and it beggars belief that sols assist them....i weighed up the stress n cost of an enforcemet order for costs...decided to let it go...now after nearly 9 years it looks like i will need to enforce an order to get the 20% equity i was awarded earlier this year...if i didnt need the 20% i would let it go....as i need and have a right to it i have now decided to hit x with enforcement order for costs also..another learning curve in div....arghhhh!!
Elle

Hi Elle,

Yes this is what I am finding - my ex's solicitors are completely compliant in her lying and manipulating and seem to be helping her do it so it is all dragged out and they line their own pockets. Good luck with your own order!

Richard