current value is 18k.
My feeling is that a 4 bedroom house is far more than my wife and daughter need. A sale of the house and cashing in the endowment would realise 230k. My wife could have 180k+ to purchase a 2 bed property mortgage free., or take on a small mortgage for something a better. Would the courts allow for my wife to retain a house far bigger than her needs and make no provision at all for my rehousing?
No I think in this situation a court would order the house sold and you released from mortgage. If your wife has any mortgage capacity then she could be expected to have a small mortgage and therefore release some equity to you to allow you to rehome your self.
In return you would be expected to share your pension.
Valued at 18k. If we sold the house and cashed in the endowment it would realise about 230k. My wife could have 180k+ to purchase a 2 bed property mortgage free, or take on a small mortgage for something bigger. Are the courts really likely to allow my wife and daughter to continue to live in a 4 bed property, giving me no opertunity to rehouse
I cannot possibly see how a court could not agree with you that your daughter in law representing your wife pro bono is not a conflict of interest and harrassment to you.
Your wife can go on and on safe in the knowledge that proceedings are costing her financially NOTHING and that she has a legally and professionally qualified solicitor who can wrap not only you but also the judges round her little finger - well actually I do not believe that any competent UK Judge would be wrapped around her little finger or any one elses for that matter including yours.
I believe it is a conflict of interest and potentially litigation misconduct if she carries on with it.
Also she has a duty to disclose, do her best to support you and your daughter, get you released from your mortgage liability not only so that you can get a new mortgage but also so that you do not remain liable.
Well, I have been thinking more about your situation and I think it potentially more complex than at first hand.
Obviously your wife has an unfair advantage as if your daughter in law goes to court and exercises her rights of audience as a solicitor (which she has) then the case gets more abusive as she is in effect acting as a McKenzie friend.
As a trained solicitor and a member of the general public as well she can accompany your wife to court but she needs to disclose her knowledge and competency.
The precedent on this is Numby (N) a child.
In this case one of the Macs was a trained solicitor and I believe both parties were in court with Macs and in that case the parties were not married.
MacKenzie friends do not have rights of audience in UK Courts but if they are trained solicitors they have a duty to uphold the law and not be dishonest.
In that case the wife (I think she had the solicitor as a Mac) was trying to break into the partners business stating that because they had a child together she was entitled to half of it (think it was £200,000).
Numby stated that the decision in district court to order husband to pay the lump sum was wrong. He also made it clear that Macs did not have the right to speak in court whether they were legally trained or not.
I would think that if you make a fuss about her attending court and being advised by your daughter in law all that will happen is that your wife will be advised by her daughter in law behind the scenes - so your situation does not improve.
So I would proceed on that basis, that the intentions of your wife and your daughter in law cannot be seen to be anything but dishonest and abuse of process.
Firstly I think you should write to your wife and her solicitor informing her of your concerns and your view and suggesting bearing in mind your daughter in laws knowledge of the law that it should be very easy to get negotation and consent without too many protracted proceedings in divorce.
I would also state in your letter that you reserve the right to submit your letter to court should your divorce and financial remedy have to get that far.
Most peoples finances and personal circumstance are not that complicated and the more you know, whether you are a self litigant or not, the more duties you have to the Law, the court, your departing spouses and your family in general.
If in doubt google litigation rules 23 feb 2011 entity rules. Towards the end of the document it explains everyones duty (it is prepared to explain the expertise a lawyer has to be able to show to pass the exam to gain a certificate for rights of audience in uk courts).
Everyone has a duty to be honest, to do their best to stop protracted proceedings and to protect everyone and most importantly to uphold the faith that the general public have in the interests of Justice.
I would be interested to know whether the offers made in "open and honest" negotations are marked as Open Offer or Without Prejudice offers?
Also are the letters on Solicitor headed paper or are they offers which come directly from you wife?
The idea that after twenty years your wife comes out with all the equity and you stay on the mortgage and get just £5k is seriously prejudiced - even if the letters are marked without prejudice a court would have to say that "without prejudice" was being abused and you would be in your rights to disclose it to a court as it is obviously very prejudiced and very dishonest and taking advantage of your situation as a self litigant who cannot afford (or even doesn''t want - you should not be prejudiced just because you do not have a solicitor for any reason) to get one.
You have rights and responsibilites and a duty of care to your daughter. Your wife has a duty of care to your daughter and that does not include abusing your long marriage and putting you in an emotionally and financially distressed state and in a situation where you cannot provide a stable home for your daughter post divorce.
That is my opinion, based on what I have learnt about the law (parents have a duty of care to their children always and it is a permanent obligation until they reach majority) and it is also my belief by way of conscience (covered under the Human Rights act) and I am a great believer in Human Rights for all - after what I have witnessed in UKCourts I am a strong believer in Human Rights for UK Judges.
Trust in the Law and I do not think you will be dissapointed - I haven''t been not yet and really don''t believe that I will be in future.