Fairly straightforward case as there is no custody battle.
Main complication is that the H is attempting to hide foreign assets, namely by transferring them to his father for no money. This was done well after divorce proceedings were issued and indeed after Decree Nisi.
They have attempted to smokescreen to court with a massive 50 page statement to justify the transfer of property. Despite owning the property for 25 years he is claiming that father wanted it back so he transferred it back to him. Clearly all he is doing is trying to minimise the amount of money in the "pot".
Also, we have a son that is still in full time education (BA) and is due to finish shortly. However he is planning to continue full time with a masters.
So, 2 questions really:
1) Will the Judge likely see through the transfer of foreign property?
2) With our son still being in full time university education and living at home give us a better than 50/50 split?
Your son''s need for a bedroom while he is at uni will be a factor. This means your immediate housing need is for a 2 bed place. Not sure how you stand with postgraduate study. It is normally only first degree that''s counted. Incidentally it is not full time education so child maintenance does not apply. Your stbx can agree to support him and this can be enshrined in a court order but if he does not, I don''t think a judge would order it. Your son could apply to the courts himself for a order.
Your share of the assets will depend on your respective needs for housing and income and the ability of the matrimonial pot to meet them.
As far as transferring assets goes, I imagine the judge will take a dim view. At FDR I doubt they will have read a rambling statement. You need to be able to set out the position succinctly. Did money change hands on transfer of the property?
Hmmmm - well, the Court has certainly got the power to set aside transactions which are made with the specific intention of defeating the wife''s claims for financial relief. But really this is the kind of situation that calls for legal advice . For self reppers this presents difficulties which they would not be well equipped to handle.
Yes, I agree, it does sound extremely fishy and judges of course are used to these tactics. So I''d expect your x2b to have a pretty rough time but can''t predict what a judge might do.
The question of your grown up son - well, one would need more information. Dependent children have a high priority as you no doubt know. There is some general recognition in these forums that children at uni do need a base to which they can return during vacations, but the case for deferring a sale of the FMH and division of the proceeds is weaker than it would be if the child were still a minor.
But everything has its limit ; the general wiki view, and one which I personally agree with, is that, for ordinary mortals, a parent''s duty to support their child through education really ends with the first degree, and after that they''re adults, well qualified, and on their own. The primary consideration is your housing need, and you might get a share higher than 50% based on that consideration alone. It''s also possible that the judge might give you a larger share to compensate for his not so subtle attempt to divest himself of his assets. But without hard information I can only make general observations.
In relation to transferring the assets "back" to his father "just because his father wanted it back" sounds odd.
There is obviously history here. On what basis did your ex acquire this property, was it by way of gift. A judge will not be fooled and I expect somewhere within the 50 page document you will be able to find flaws if they are creating a story?
Thanks for the replies. It was by way of inheritance, although it went to his father first. Looks like they are trying to fudge the dates of transfer to make it look like it was transferred back a couple of weeks before the Decree Nisi rather than after. Either way, it was well after divorce proceeding began. Other side are being very bullish and want me to agree to this assets being excluded for the purposes of financial relief or they will get experts for FH then request costs. I think their case is very weak, it is clear that the assets belonged to my ex without any issue for 25 years and should therefore surely be viewed as a matrimonial asset. Does it matter if it was a few weeks before or after decree nisi?
With regards to my son, this is one of the reasons my ex has dragged this out for so long, he is hopeful that by the time this is all finalised he will be in a 50/50 position. My son lives at home as I cannot afford for him to live at university. He will continue to live at home whilst doing a masters.
Another thing that has baffled me, the court asked that we obtain a valuation of the matrimonial home to include one valuation with vacant possession and the other with tenants in possession. The tenants in possession one is significantly lower. What is the purpose of this? Whilst the court will view our housing requirements as being 2 bedroom, as I also have my adult daughter with me I will need to do everything possible to keep the matrimonial home. Moving to a 2 bed in the same area would barely be any cheaper anyhow