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.


Bankruptcy

  • Beaney
  • Beaney's Avatar Posted by
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
28 Feb 08 #15248 by Beaney
Topic started by Beaney
I do not have my Decree Absolute yet and my husband is not complying with the Consent Order from FDR (last Dec). I have been told that he is planning to deliberately 'Bankrupt' himself. How will this affect me and my financial outcome ? the Consent order was that all our properties must be sold and the proceeds split between us. He has stated that he would rather go bankrupt than give me a penny!! I am extremely worried about this possibility.

  • Angel557
  • Angel557's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
28 Feb 08 #15264 by Angel557
Reply from Angel557
all i know about this is some people are doing this on purpose i knew my ex would do something like the IVA and not go bankrupt otherwise that meant he could'nt have his own company.As regards to going bankrupt, does'nt make good reading tbh.

The power to upset the earlier divorce settlement (up to 5 years prior to bankruptcy) as a transaction at an undervalue.

It matters not whether the bankrupt was solvent at the time of the settlement or whether the settlement was made in the family courts or outside of the courts. In the 2007 case of Hill & Bangham v Haines the bankruptcy court ordered that the husband's half share in the matrimonial home, which had been transferred to the wife by the Family Courts only for him to be made bankrupt some years later, be transferred to the trustee in bankruptcy.

This is just one of several examples of the trustee's powers which demonstrate the general principles that:

- the bankrupcty court 'out trumps' the family court;

- the interests of the creditors 'out trump' the interests of the former spouse and the family.

Unless the spouse buys out the trustee's interest in the equity in the home, the trustee will force the family out, in years two or three of the bankruptcy, in order to realise his share of the equity. If there is equity and the trustee has a share of it, only if there are truly exceptional circumstances (and I have never seen any in 20 years!), will the family be allowed to stay in the home without buying out the trustee's interest. This is because under Insolvency Law, the family is given one year to make alternative arrangements or agree a deal with the trustee, but in years two and three the creditors' interests prevail over those of the family. You should read my blog on homes in bankruptcy for more information on homes as the topic is quite complicated

The 'innocent' party to the divorce is often hurt, financially, some years down the line from the settlement. And when they get hurt, they often hold accountable the people whose advised them in the divorce. With this and the vagaries of life in mind, it is worthwhile seeking advice from an insolvency practitioner when you or you client are going through a divorce where there is a possibility that the other party could experience financial problems sometime down the line. And who can foresee what will happen to the other party in the next five years?

:angry::angry::angry::angry:
Debt comes before the children's welfare even though child protection is No 1 , can't work it out.

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11