things can go wrong , I also had an agreement, X now saying was under pressure and no longer agrees so after blowing all her money has come back for more of what share I had. my answer to this is NFC but court still has to go through again
The only problem you had was that you never got a Consent Order done at the time! You have an arguement that you had already sorted the finances, you need proof of that such as the cheque copy that you paid her, if you paid her any cash then you need bank statements from that period of time showing it went out of ur account and into hers. Also you have proof she had legal advice at that time, you also have proof her solicitors advised her against the settlement before a consent order was signed. I think if you can show all the above you will be ok. This 2nd bite of the cherry doesnt always pay off and can cost the other party lots of money! Its just our court system is very slow and it can be really stressful for the person who is being hassled for an extra bite. Keep your chin up mush it will work out in the end.
the only thing she is going for as far as I know is the pension now its being paid at a higher figure, but not sure how as its been in payment since 1994 and the agreement has as you know laready been signed to say she doesnt want it, but at that time it was a pitance with the pension now in full payment i can now go to a part time job if i can find some one who will take a grey hiared coffin dodger on heheheh with a left overs of a stroke and H Atk
think the calculater just a guide it will only go on figures not facts and circumstances.
Ive been on it and if its correct ill be ok.. but it has no personality or information about other relevant issues, i think best to take its info and perhaps divide by2, minus 11, multiply by 2.65, add half the subtotal and then be even more confused.lol looby
Your pension nightmare is similar to ours. What you have to prove in court is that the pension you have amassed (cant think of another word at mo)is pension that is not a marital asset, so all the payments you mad into it, after you split up belong to you. So what you really have to do is get a valuation from the time of separation. The CETV value of what it was worth then. They will argue that.......erm how can i explain?...........
Right say you have 100k in bank, if you never touched it and drew it out after 5 years then it would be worth 100k plus interest. So just for arguements sake its now worth 115k, then due to no effort on your part it increased in value. Its called something like economic growth. Thats the arguement put forward by the other party a case called Rossi v Rossi.
Anyway our argument was that when she left it was worth 160k, they said due to no effort on my husbands part it had gone up in value, we argued "he works and pays into it" how can that be economic growth??? We argued she should get 50% of the 160k it was worth when she left. Not 75/80 or even 50% of todays value some five years later! The Courts basically agreed and we got it down to around 28%, we settled with her at the door of court for 30% of todays value which in actual fact probably works out to be around 50% when she left!
I hope that makes it a bit clearer, in what you should be arguing.