This sounds disappointingly true. This is really hard. In researching the sheriff presiding over my case, I can only find 4 documented cases since 1999. For a fact, my husband will not negotiate even if he were advised to!
In our draft Minute of Agreement, we are basing the division on the value of the property at the day when I left (I actually organised the valuation). I am asking for 50% of the equity; he will get the other 50% plus any increase in price in the intervening three years; but in return, I expected him to pay all household costs during that same time. He has been paying interest only on the mortgage.
If we were to start again or if the court were to declare a "relevant date" of now, presumably I would get 50% of the latest valuation, but would then be liable for 50% of the costs.
This might explain why my solicitor today has received a letter from STBX suggesting that we scrap the draft agreement and start again, on a pure 50:50 split, but also splitting costs. My solicitor has responded, not agreeing or disagreeing, but asking for a breakdown of those costs.
I wonder whether the court would look at what's happened so far and agree the relevant date is three years ago, or would set a new relevant date now?