I can tell you about debt, from myown experience through courts(ongoing)
I had in my opinion marital debts but in my name, managable whilst together and was for the family 90% of the time... however I am painstakingly havng to prove every penny from last 8 years when debts started to the court as ordered by his barrister at fdr... only then at my fh will the judge decide who debts belong too.... so it is no way classed as shared debt automatically
Hope this enlightens you a bit
also if i do not manage the mammoth task of getting all historical statements, even though I can prove ive tried to the point of going to national database and physically retrievng them myself, I could be up for a wasted costs order...... food for thought ....
My partner offered 70/30 to save costs before ancillary relief started
[If that was 70/30 in her favour and this was an "open offer" then W could even under the new rules be in danger of a costs order. When you consider £25,000 has been incurred on a "simple" case W 's refusal could amount to litigation conduct.
Now what more of a 50% case cou;d it be
We do not know pension situation or the length of marriage/co-habitation.
I agree with the points regarding debts they will be deducted from equity if reasonably incurred.
When you consider costs total £25,000 and solicitor and barrister won't commit themselves I despair sometimes with some of my bretheren!!
In a simple case like this guys the best advice (assuming W wont see a Mediator) with an obstructive person is to swiftly comply with the pre action protocol by swearing form E and offering to exchange.
Once that is done make an open offer and if generous like the 70/30 above time bomb it. The offer is only open for acceptance for 28 days and after that it will NOT be repeated.
If O/S swear form E -and no agreement issue Form A and ask for early hearing within 1 month listed for 2 hours and use FDA as an FDR.
Crt will evaluate offer and when O/S given short shrift matter will settle. At worst FH will follow asap say 6-8 weeks -because O/S may be seeking an unreasonable settlement thar can be "litigation conduct" and where one side seeks far too much DJ will\penalise that conduct.
Apart from the legal team's failure to commit I am concerned with a reference to a Calderbank offer- they went out with the Ark and displays a lack of keeping up to date. It may be unfair to heap the blame on them as W sounds as if it is her greed that is the real problem.
"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"
[I personally don't think this should be enough to alter the settlement. Is there any evidence W cannot manage on her £18K income. If she ran that argument she is a country mile from getting SM anyway.
If there was a large disparity on pensions in a long marriage fine a pensions offset may explain the % difference. Similarly if H earned much more than W and we were capitalising SM but not here.]