mediation has failed to sort out finances re family home. But the assets pot is only 100k but as the main carer and earn 60 % less than ex I just need s fsir deal so I can rehome myself and 2 kids. is arbitration a cheaper solution? How can a get a fair deal but not pay a fortune in costs?
I see you haven't had a reply, so I will at least attempt one.
You neither want or need a long protracted wrangle in Court over finances. The more you spend on costs of arbitration or litigation, the less there is for you.
For starters - if you haven't done it already - the first step is for you to make a full list of your assets, supported by documentary evidence like bank statements, share valuations, etc. This is something you can do yourself and believe me, it's cheaper than getting a solicitor to do it for you.
Your husband should do the same. For the same reasons.
It's a damn sight cheaper than getting a lawyer to do it for you. And may I stress, it must be full and accurate.
You're quite right, of course. Neither of you can afford to dissipate limited assets on protracted legal disputes.
Arbitration is cheaper than a Court hearing, other things being equal. But the main problem is that the arbitrator's recommendation is not legally binding, whereas that of a judge is.
If, as you say, mediation has failed, is there any reasons to believe that arbitration would do any better ?
I have to say, looking at what you say and reading between the lines, I'd hazard an educated guess that your position is likely to be a strong one, given that you have dependent children.
I think it's quite likely that you would have the right to continue to live in the house until the youngest is 18, at which point the property is sold and the proceeds divided.
Your husband needs a roof over his head, but it's a virtual cert that it would be a rented roof. You need to agree how much contact with the children he is to have.
This is a bitter pill for most divorcing men to swallow, but the Courts must prioritise the needs of the children, which means, indirectly, that your housing needs, as the carer , would also have to be prioritised.
Now I don't know what the mediator recommended in your case, but I'd hazard a guess that the recommendation might be something in line with what I have suggested might be the outcome if you litigated it. I can understand why this would not be welcome to your husband.
I would be interested to know how what I have said here corresponds with the outcome of the mediation.
It is a bitter pill for a divorcing husband to swallow, he loses his wife and day to day contact with his kids. Believe me, I understand that.
But as I said, I do not think your husband has an easy task here, if there are two dependent children and limited assets.
thank you for you reply I thought arbitration was legally binding? so what is it a strongly suggested solution? what if we can't agree?
while I appreciate theres no crystal ball, what is the changes of judge saying 50-50?
ould ex just try to delay until youngest is 18to strengthen his chanceof 50 50?
are you speaking from personal or professional standpoint?
Arbitration is where the parties try to work out a solution with the assistance of an arbitrator, who will know the law, will have a reasonable idea of the likely outcome of a contested Court hearing, will listen to both points of view and will try to see if the parties can come to an agreement which can then be submitted to the Court for approval - and the Court will make an order in the terms of the agreement which then becomes legally binding.
At its best, arbitration can avoid or lessen the bitterness and rancour that can all too easily make a bad situation worse.
The point that I am trying to make is simply
that where both parties, or even one party only, have taken entrenched positions from which they will not budge, then arbitration is very unlikely to succeed. An arbitrator cannot impose a settlement on warring parties; a judge can.
Yes, there are scheme for binding arbitration in other areas of law. But in family law, the job of an arbitrator is to help the parties reach agreement without going to Court.
Yes, your husband could try to delay. But the Court has procedures which you can use to comply with the procedure on time, or else.
Since you enquire, I am a solicitor admitted to the roll in 1963. Now retired, of course.