Divorced and going through ancillary no children.
Ex declared herself bankrupt after divorce.
but first sending loans out of jurisdiction alleging without trace.
Separate financial banking etc
Benefits stopped paying her but I cannot find out why?
She claims she is looking for work but has not found any.
No proof of job applications, rejections etc.
Ex has not applied, allegedly for job seekers allowance.
To what is she entitled.
Court ordered I pay her rent, utilities plus monthly allowance.
Am i subsidizing the state who should continue paying rent benefits.
Do i have to pay over £500 per month?
Judge expressly stated in Order he MAY take these payments into account. meaning that he will not!
Do i have to pay? What if I do not.
Do i have to pay if Court Order is in different name from tenant agreement she or rather the benefits have been paying???
The issue of the extent to which it is reasonable for a spouse to transfer his or her responsibilities on to the State raises some pretty profound moral and legal complications.
Most people would regard it as wrong if a very well heeled husband could get away with paying nothing to an impecunious wife, on the basis that the State would support her. So I think it's well settled that, as a matter of general principle, it is no answer to a claim for spousal maintenance to argue that the State would meet the wife's needs anyway.
But of course, things aren't all that simple.
If a husband has a low income ( and yes, I know that some wives do pay maintenance to their husbands ) you can have a situation where he cannot afford to pay a sum which will meet the wife's needs, and therefore he will only be asked to pay what he can afford and the wife has to claim benefits to make up the difference. Effectively, therefore, the husband is contributing to the wife's benefits, and the issue is, how much, and for how long.
In fact, it is very often these cases where there is not enough money that call for creative thought - far more so than when there is plenty of money.
Another problem is where the wife has a disability and therefore cannot be expected to support herself. To quote my own situation, I have been paying SM to my ex for 25 years. She is in a care home, will never recover, totally unemployable. Should I be expected to carry on doing this - even if I can afford it - until the day my wife dies or I do ? I don't know, I am not objective. What do others think ?
As the Bard said, I have spoke this much to mitigate the justice of thy plea. You are more than welcome to ask for further advice, but I need to know rather more than I have here.
Thanks for your reply to what I thought was
my simple question concerning benefits.
As far as my situation is concerned (no children):
she has declared herself bankrupt but not before
sending £100K or more out of jurisdiction first.
She is now on legal aid while I cannot afford lawyers.
By the way we have never been married (void) and yet
I am defending an ancillary claim.
Submitted at least a year before the petition
(see s.26 MCA 1973).
Her benefits have been stopped recently.
She and her two lawyers [paid by you indirectly)
will not answer why?
Does any one know the reasons why benefits
can be stopped?
How I can get official statement from benefits
people or elsewhere as to their reason(s) ?
To pay her instead of the state would make me bankrupt.
I guess it would cost the state
( and you indirectly)
twice as much than to continue paying just one person.
She has been cohabiting with another man.
Purchased a car for him before going bankrupt.
Went bankrupt owing her solicitor £10,000
and owing £9,000 to HSBC for a loan she got
in a false name specifically for her legal costs.
Yep, the whole £19,000 went abroad so she got the
full tax free benefit. HSBC did not even bother re-claiming it.
I am told by the learned judge that I will have
to re-pay it and ALL her other debts.
So she gets the full benefit not just once but twice
if not three times.
The same solicitor who she owes is now acting
for her AGAIN??!!
although she still owes him £10,000.
but the difference is he is paid by the state??
She is claiming that
I should pay that £10,000.
ie. she is claiming £10,000 not only as a debt
but also as costs therefore calculating
So she benefits four times.
YOU tell me the legal situation.
As far as the moral is concerned I know the
answer for my situation.
She has admitted under oath in the high court
that she is a repeat reckless illegal entrant to UK;
admitted perjury premeditated repeat reckless;
admitted forgery premeditated repeat reckless;
using false name;
admitted using two or more DoB;
admitted deceit premeditated repeat reckless;
admitted fraud premeditated repeat reckless;
admitted recruiting and using bogus lawyer;
and had to withdraw her false sworn signed affidavit she
and her solicitor submitted to the court.
But the "learned" judge ruled there was no "mens rea" on her part??!! (see in wikipedia)
You judge whether the learned judge was talking from HIS mens rea.
Yet, still I have to defend myself, pay her although I have been declared the innocent victim by the high court?
By the way the learned judge ruled it was a VOID marriage ceremony (s.11 MCA 1973).
No morals... just keep to the law and justice.
eg Stack v Dowden ; Public Policy; etc
What would you advise me do??!!
Seppuku looks attractive.