Am I being unreasonable?

Doesn't Legal Aid just work as a loan??? The lawyers will keep batting paperwork back and forth, and if it does go to court, you stand to pay heavilly for that, which will come from marital assets.

By the look of things, you have made a favourable offer. My ex wasted £50,000 on a full trial, in 1999. He admitted afterwards it was a waste of money. Get yourself clued up, and represent yourself. You will be looked upon favourable by the judge.
I went in alone, he with his 'team' of seven solisitors, barristers, lackeys etc.

They will intimidate, but you've got to rise above that.

Tell her from me: SHE'S WASTING HER MONEY!!!!

Get a mediator instead.

Thanks Mike

Yes I do agree that my sol may know the way our local courts tends to view awarding costs etc, 25 years in same local court.

Thing is, I have been arguing back and forth over this 90/10 split since December.

I am the respondent in the divorce but the applicant in ancillary relief because I did not have any choice but to go the court route to try and get a better settlement.
She has always stuck to this offer and will not be swayed anywhere near my offer, even at first appt her sol said "this is what we want and we're not budging"

Are you saying that I could still try to get costs as this is the specific issue which we do not agree and am pretty confident it will not go 90/10 at court but I could be pushed to a FH if she still does not agree.

Her sol is obviously advising that this is a reasonable request, am just concerned at my costs increasing further arguing over getting costs awarded.

Thanks

Dockley:
She isn't going to get a 90/10 split. She's just NOT.

She can waste her money trying, she will be seen as manipulative and greedy, (just as my ex-husband was!)

In California, you get a 50/50 split, after ten tears. (Which is why Tom Cruise filed for divorce from Nicole Kidman, outta-the-blue one month before their 10th anniversary).

In the UK, the court looks at 'need'. Primary concern to house kids and resident parent. And just like the mortgage culculator, you'll have your needs listed and taken care of.

I had to fight for my rights to even own part of my house, when my ex said I hadn't paid for it, (he later admitted to mental illness)... but I had to prove it. Which I did.

I got 33% of marital assets, (despite that the judge saw I had put in 50% over 16 yrs). I lost out, because my salary had been used for child care (for ten years) ....and his had been used to plug his pension. Back then 1999, I couldn't claim against a pension.

He had saved £225,000 in pensions, (whilst I scoured the supermarkets for the reduced stuff). His pensions only came to light during the divorce.

The judge said I'd been a very generous woman, and that my ex was the luckiest man he'd ever known!

So, as a mother that always worked, put up 50% of equity in house, paid 100% childcare, maintained myself, car, gym, clothes etc from my own income... I still only got 33% of all assets. No alimony. No child support.

Lots of working women lose.

Your wife is being unrealistic, and she'll pay heavilly for that, from the equity on the house. I know she may be very disappointed in life failing her, she may now be trapped home with kids, which may minimise her chances of finding someone new. But there's not a price you put on that. 90/10...ain't going to happen. Her sol isn't going to tell her that! Because Sol gets paid for every letter, every lick of every self-seal stamp!!!

She can stamp her foot all she wants, many do.

The biggest win you'll have?

YOU'LL SOON BE WELL SHOT OF HER!!!

Trouble is, Dockley, you and I have no means of knowing the advice your wife had. I find it hard to believe that any solicitor would advise a wife to go for 90% of the assets unless, perhaps, the marriage had been very short and she had provided all or most of them in the first place.

It is, I understand, the duty of a solicitor whose client is contemplating litigation to give an honest opinion of his/her chances of success and of the possible consequences of failure. In most litigation, the consequences will be that the unsuccessful party pays the costs, and in general terms, that is quite right ; if I bring an action against you which is wholly unjustified, you should not have to incur expenditure in defending an action which should never have been brought in the first place. In jurisdictions where each party pays his own costs - for example parts of the USA - it is by no means uncommon to bring meritless claims, expecting that the ' defendant ' will decide it is easier to make a payment rather than have to defend the action at his own expense, at the rate USA lawyers charge.

But ultimately it is the client who decides ; if a solicitor tells his client ( almost certainly in writing ) that he will probably lose and have to pay two sets of legal costs, and the client wants to press on regardless, I do not think you can blame the solicitor. If he doesn't take the case you can bet your life someone else will.

Solicitors tend to get a bad press on this website, and I am sure that there are lawyers to give the clients unrealistic expectations of what they can expect out of a divorce, because they get paid at the end of the day anyway. Fortunately, not all do. This type of conduct is not peculiar to solicitors either ; if you ask for an agent to value your house, there are some who will over-value to get the business on the basis that they can always compromise later.

But returning to your case ; if your solicitor is advising you that it will not count against your wife costs-wise if she adopts an extreme position, and if your wife's solicitor is telling her the same - then it seems to me beyond argument that the normal disincentive to make unreasonable claims - namely the fear of incurring two sets of costs - has gone out of the window. If that is the case - well, come back, Charles Dickens, your country needs you.

Thanks all for your input,

I have at last two letters from her sol, making this offer and advising it is needed by her to rehouse as she cannot get a high enough mortgage.

She is infact housed in rented with her new partner and has been last 15months, who's to say she will even buy a new house when she gets her settlement anyway? She may well stay where she is with new b/f.

It all boils down to her wanting to buy a house for X and only beng able to raise Y for the mortgage, therefore asking for such a high split to purchase the house she wants.
There isn't enough in the pot to rehouse both or even one of us without a mortgage.

My sol has always said to me that he will try for a 50/50 split, but at worst case scenario 60/40 based on his judgement of the circumstances and finances. He has never guaranteed me anything, just advised on his knowledge, which is why I am going to court to try and get nearer my settlement than hers.

We both have needs as we have a child each, however both her and her sol seem to be overlooking that fact.

I really do hope that if I get pushed to a FH, then some of my costs are awarded.

Thanks