How I wish you had the Divorce Calculator up and running. Wondering if anyone could give an opinion on the following:
Partner going through Ancillary Relief. Ex 2B being totally obstructive.
No dependent children
House equity approx 120k
Similar incomes around 18k
Married 20 years
She is with boyfriend but not admitting co-hab
Partner lives with me in rented acc with my 10 year daughter.
My partner offered 70/30 to save costs before ancillary relief started which she refused. Went to FDR and judge said should split 60/40. Calderbank letter sent but ignored. FH due soon. My questions are what do you think is a fair split? Do you think my partner has any chance of claiming costs. She has been totally unreasonable and wants all the equity in the house so its been impossible to negotiate without going through legal avenues. She has also been obstructive re divorce and its taken almost a year to get Nisi. Partners cost up to date are 10k hers around 15k. Any advice as solicitors and barrister won't commit themselves!
Based on the facts (especially that your partner & his ex have no kids) the outcome will be pretty much what the judge said at the FDR, i.e. 60:40. I really cannot see it going 70:30.
As she has refused 70:30 then unless she got better (i.e. 80:20) at final hearing then there is no way your partner will have to pay her costs. Did the petition take place after 6 april 2006? If it did then both sides pay own costs. If before then you partner may be able to get ex to contribute to his costs as she refused a very good offer.
Remember this advice is given with incomplete knowledge so don't do anything rash because of it.
I think the key info missing is your own income.
i.e. if your had very high income and paid all the bills then your partner would have low needs and that would tend towards judge awarding his ex more.
Assuming you have lowish/modest income then one thing you should do is carefully document your households income and outgoings (you, partner and daughter). Try to paint a picture that your personal income is all spent on your daughter (school, trips, PC for education, clothes, etc). That leaves your partner having to pay a high percentage of the actual bills, rent, elec, gas etc.
Cos unless you are all very well off the ruling will be based on needs - so ex's needs verses your partners needs. He needs to avoid judge concluding that she needs 1000 per month for rent/bills etc (cos not co-habiting) and he needs only 250 per month for rent cos you pay all the bills - get the idea?
Hope this helps - any follow on questions pls ask away!
Thanks very much for this. Can you tell me why 60/40 rather than 50/50. It just seems unfair that because we have been honest and admitted co-habitation my partner will be penalised. Its obvious that she is waiting until after the FH to cohabit. I have a very low income and we live in an area with high rents. Ex also claiming she needs 4 bed detached house for her son to stay in, which is rubbish as he is renting with his girlfriend and has no intention of returning home. Its a long marriage and so of course she is entitled to half the assets but why more than half??
To be frank - if all things are even - the court could well rule 50:50.
Similar incomes, long marriage, equal weight given to contributions all point to 50:50.
If needs were deemed to be different then this could lead to a variation away from 50:50.
Which is why you need to establish that your partners needs are as high as ex's.
If his ex cohabits shortly after the hearing you could then go back and ask for a re-evaluation as she will need to declare that she is not cohabiting and has no intention of cohabiting (for a period of around a year).
In your second post you mention a son. How old is he? Is he in full time or tertiary education? If he is under 21 and at college or university then it could impact the settlement? Pls confirm his age and whether working or at what type of educational establishment.
But if son is over 21 and working then there is I feel a very strong chance that 50:50 will be the outcome.
His son is 20 and has lived away from home for 18 months and has intention of returning. My partner also has significant debts, some accrued before their separation and afterwards because he had to pay the mortgage, bills etc for over a year before she would work! Thank you so much for this. I really feel he has a good case. I will keep you posted about what happens at the FH. Good sight. Well Done!
Ok, as the son is 20 and has no intention of returning (im guessing thats what you meant but missed out 'no'!) then he will not impact the equation.
The debts that your partner accrued either before or after separation are regarded as joint debts (so long as they were not from careless excess spending). So these will be taken into account, i.e. taken off the total before 50:50 split.
The flip side is that any debts that your partner's ex has accrued recently are also marital debts, again as long as reasonably incurred.