OBE's gone to bed but I just read your rant and as his NP I just had to write to say I agree with you whole heartedly. I have always been a fair woman thats probably why I will have to work til I have one foot in the grave!!! I have never sponged off a man in my life and never will!! My poor OBE has bared his sole to his coniving wife and her greedy "get all you can" solicitor apart from telling them what colour underpants he is wearing and they still don't believe him!!! I'm sick of the whole thing.
What really makes me laugh is we keep being advised that he doesnt have much in the way of equity 140k in house and his pension 28K but hes paid into it all his life and worked his b**l**ks off so it is a lot to him to just hand over on a plate to her and end up with nothing and everyone seems to think it is a fair comment to say that he wont get anything out of it but for goodness sake he's 61 and expected to keep working forever whilst his wife lives happily ever after??? I know that there are plenty of other options that the legal fraternity dont even seem to consider! It just all seems to be down to well they cant buy another property with that small amount but who say they have to buy??
I consider myself a fairly common sensicle person and I would think well, why do I need to buy something at my time of life so right if we split without going legal thats about 70k each I'll rent a nice place where I dont have to worry about any more maintenance bills the landlord can do that and I will have a right few quid in the bank and can get on with the rest of my life and if I want the odd day in a health farm having my manicure done I can cos I'm sure I could find a good way of making the 70k work for me in some sort of high interest account but I would continue working anyway unlike most wives who seem to think it is their god given right to give up work cos they are at retirement. Like his wife has just decided to drop on us 4 weeks before the FH!! Excuse me? Give up work? Do that and you die!!!! Nothing to get up for anymore!! yeh its great for the first few months but after that forget it!!!! Oh yes and no response please fiona to this either because I've read all your statistics and got the T shirt too!!!
Good luck at forthcoming "unnecessary" hearing dock we've got one looming too! She just can't see a good offer when it is stuck under her nose and is continuing to spend money that she hasn't got!!No doubt that will get deducted from what OBE wont be getting!! Its a farce eh new law pay your own costs looks like he'll be paying hers indirectly anyway!
Nite nite all!
fond regards luv hugs n'stuff OBE"S new partner!!!
Yes Fiona, Joanna's husband does seem to have the anarchaic view that what is his is his.
But lets be honest, if Joanna is to "live" (hardly a life of misery) on tax credits and DLA she will undoubtedly be entitled to Legal Aid, so that, in itself will soon put paid to any "anarchiac" views her husband might have.
When the divorce kicks off, most people spout to their stbx's what they expect to get out of it and what they wont give up and what they want etc etc.
I'm sure that several solicitors letters from the Wife/PWC's side under the "umberella" of Legal Aid will soon put a stop to any ideas the husband might have of coming out with anything more than he is entitled to.
It should only cost him a few thousand pound (not under the umberella of Legal Aid of course) to disagree with the "Wife/PWC's offers all the way to court, if not before then it will soon bring him back to down earth with a very nasty bump about his 10% or so on.
Regardless of whether Joanna uses Legal Aid or not, I think we all "know" what my point is, male or female, layperson or solicitor.
People (usually the PWC/Wife) obtain a nominal amount of Legal Aid funding to start the divorce process. Then it tends to get more acrimonious than amicable as one person receives unrealistic advice from their solicitor, or dare I say, sees £££££'s before their PWC eyes, solicitor seeing ££££'s before their "without prejudice" eyes.
This "nominal" amount is then extended and extended and extended to whatever amount required to "fight" the privately funded client on the other side (usually the non PWC/husband).
I really dont know what point you are making when you say "I dont think people would choose Legal Aid unless they have to", that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time!!!! Of course we would ALL choose Legal Aid if we could, that way you wouldn't have to set up a mandatory standing order of £150 per month to your solicitor as payment towards your "overall" costs which are likely to be in the thousands by the time you're finished.
We would all prefer to have free prescriptions and free dental work if we could too!!
We all know solicitors only fill in a form to have the funding extended, there is no-one checking whether it is justified or not, they dont have anyone knocking on their door saying "excuse me we think you've shafted the government dealing with this case as the final outcome is near the same as the offer made in the first place by the other side, therefore you didnt need to use all of our money in fighting it".
And yes, we all know that Legal Aid is not a gift, but it is given at a substantially reduced rate than that of a private client. For example my bills after court if it were to go all the way to a FH (undoubtedly will) will be around £14k. My wife's will be around £8k.
And also, you can apply to have the Legal Aid funding repayment deferred until you are in a more "financially able" position to repay it. My wife will "need" to use all the equity she obtains to rehouse herself, therefore the charge will be placed on her new property rather than her paying off the bill.
Does that mean I dont "need" to use all my equity then?
Some would prefer not to have the charge placed as interest is accrued on the initial debt, either way its nowehere near the same as the chunk coming out of my equity to repay legal fees and I have no choice in whether I want them deferred. Just like I have no choice but to "fight" my wife's unrealistic claims all the way to the judges's table.
Again, I know about your settlement in your ex's favour, but I also know that there must have been "other" contributory factors in your divorce to have awarded this kind of rare(ish) settlement nowadays. And being an amicable and friendly divorce took four years to sort out eventually reverting back to the original offer?
I did not say that being unrealistic/unreasonable is gender specific did I? Joanna's post just seems VERY familiar to several others I have read on here over the months.
I don't think I can really add much to that Dockley! Except once again to say here here!But I will.....
Last night a light switched on in my head. My ex is taking me down this path to a FH because she is being led to believe by her solicitor that she will get everything! Her stance on this is that she doesn't believe the small percentage I have in the house with my NP or the Trust Deed we had drawn up!! Well, I am skipping this morning because it has taken me 18 months of quaking in my boots every time I get yet another letter from MY solicitor reminding me of what I am being accused of! Well, I have just realised it is all unfounded!! She is saying that as soon as this divorce is over that my share will suddenly revert to 50/50 with my NP. OH yeh? Well my NP happens to be a switched on lady and has two kids of her own. Is she really going to hand over 50% to me just like that? Is she really going to take away part of her investment from her kids to hand to me when there is every chance I may die before her (I am older) and will have no benefit from her gifting this to me because it will be tied up in this house and will only end up going to my child??
Well, back to the light bulb effect I have realised that we bought this house (me and my NP)13 months ago on a huge interest only mortgage. Its costing about the same as it would to do a private rental except this house appealed to us more than some rentals but by paying interest only we are really only renting anyway because we can never own this place. It hasn't gone up much either over the past 13 months SO and this is the lightbulb effect assuming even if I did have 50% share - 50% of what???? By the time everything is taken out, My NP's initial investment plus interest, early repayment fees, sols fees etc etc I will be lucky to be left in a plus position anyway and with the way the economic climate is going with the property market it would have to be a very long term investment here to realise any real true equity and THEN hey ho guess what??? Again, assuming I did have 50% (which I don't) this will go to our child (mine and ex's) anyway so why the fight!!!! Why the hell has she spent 10k chasing me for a ficticious 50% of virtually nothing that will go to our child anyway? Then, she has the cheek to say she wants all the FMH worth 140K!!!! Now correct me if I am wrong but who is the greedy one here?
I just cannot get my head round her argument but I am going to really persue this point with my solicitor today!!!
Fiona's constant remarks about statistics in divorce are completely deluded! I have actually read a report from a solicitor who gave up being one on moral grounds because in her words:
"When a divorcing woman walks in the solicitor will rub their hands together - however, if a divorcing man walks through their door they throw their head in their hands because they already know they have lost the case!!!" That quote came from the horses mouth!!!!!!!