A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info


What are we each entitled to in our divorce settlement?

What does the law say about how to split the house, how to share pensions and other assets, and how much maintenance is payable.

What steps can we take to reach a fair agreement?

The four basic steps to reaching an agreement on divorce finances are: disclosure, getting advice, negotiating and implementing a Consent Order.

What is a Consent Order and why do we need one?

A Consent Order is a legally binding document that finalises a divorcing couple's agreement on property, pensions and other assets.


Do you need help sorting out a fair financial settlement?

Our consultant service offers expert advice and support to help you reach agreement on a fair financial settlement quickly, and for less than a quarter of the cost of using a traditional high street solicitor.


Cohabitation- what does it really mean?

  • harriet voom
  • harriet voom's Avatar Posted by
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
14 Dec 07 #9038 by harriet voom
Topic started by harriet voom
My partner and I are both going through a divorce. Mine is a relatively simple case - 10 year marriage both people financially indepedent. It is an amicable split of our assets - 50/50 and no spousal maintenance in either direction going forward. He was married for 18 years and has two children, age 14 and 12. After 6 months of him renting, we decided it would make sense for him to move into my flat. We have agree to split the cost of living there 50/50. He fully intends to pay to support his children including their public school tuition fees. He is also expecting, in addition to some split of the marital assets to pay some level of spousal maintenance.


I have read on this website conflicting things about cohabitation. It was my understanding that my financial situation or assets cannot be taken into consideration in his settlement. Is this true or have we done something foolish that will negatively influence his settlement?

Thank you.

  • AJB0492
  • AJB0492's Avatar
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
14 Dec 07 #9042 by AJB0492
Reply from AJB0492
It is my understanding if you have been living togeather as if a married couple for a period of six months although you are not married it may be classed as so and therefore your financial situation may be taken into consideration during settlement.

  • sexysadie
  • sexysadie's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
14 Dec 07 #9045 by sexysadie
Reply from sexysadie
Your assets are not combined with his and assessed together but cohabitation will be seen as reducing his living costs, e.g. he is no longer paying rent and he will be seen as having his housing needs met.

Sadie

  • LittleMrMike
  • LittleMrMike's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
14 Dec 07 #9047 by LittleMrMike
Reply from LittleMrMike
I think Sadie is right. The Court cannot make an order against the income or assets of a third party ( ie you )
but if he lives with you, that may have the effect that he might have to pay more SM then might otherwise be the case.

Mike 100468

  • attilladahun
  • attilladahun's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
14 Dec 07 #9059 by attilladahun
Reply from attilladahun
His income and capital (including house or mortgagibility) will be seen as "resources" available to you.

The Court has to consider the relevant principles which are set out in Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which, essentially, reads:-

"25 (1) It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers .... to have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the following matters, that is to say -

the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

(b) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

(c) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;

(d) the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;

(e) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;

(f) the contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family;

(g) ...the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension) which ... (by reason of the divorce) ..that party will lose the chance of acquiring;..."

In many cases it may make no difference to the case at all.

However if a new partner had a house that was sufficient for both of you and say your spouse lived in the FMH with Children with a problem in raising cash the Crt may then say a sale would be innapropriate of FMH.

Clearly if you are together with a partner (waged) maintenance payments for that spouse are likely to be irrelevant for that spouse.

Also if that cohabiting spouse has children that spouse can hardly claim that she or he should get more of the FMH equity solely on the argument she or he has to look after the children.

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11