will it affect my financial settlement

my new partner will be moving into my rented property to live with me shortly, my divorce isn''t yet completed, we have disclosed all finances etc and the solicitors have exchanged these details, my question is will my new partner moving in affect what i am awarded, stbx doesn''t know she is moving in just yet. there is 140k equity in the house which she will be remortgaging to keep, we have 2 children 10 and 15,also will the divorce only be completed once the finances are agreed or can she apply for it now? the Nisi was read out in court around 2 mths ago,

When you exchanged your form E - did you declare your intention to co-habit on it?

WR

hi, i cant recall filling in this form!! is this for the settlement for the courts, does it always go to court or can it be agreed without the courts interference,

Form E is the official Court document for full and frank financial disclosure.

If you haven''t gone to court, have you been directly asked the question about Co-hab?

Maybe you could check with your Solicitor.

Its important because if you have been asked (for example on a Form) and have not declared it prior to an agreement, the other party may request the agreement be amended to take this into consideration.

Cohabitation affects the financial settlement as your living costs are calculated as single occupancy, if you had your girlfriend living with you they would assume she would be sharing at least half of the costs, this of course frees up some of your disposable income.

Not knowing the agreement, I don''t know whether this would affect it or not, but its better to be safe and check with your Sol if you need to declare it.

There is a distinction between capital and income regarding cohabitation.

The capital entitlement should not be altered by whether one of the parties is planning to cohabit/remarry etc. i.e. capital entitlement is largely determined by the past and/or need.

The income (spousal maintenance) should be affected as the cohabitee has reduced costs. Ie spousal maintenance is about the future.

Cohabitation does not affect child maintenance.

To conceal cohabitation is theft. It is to take something from another person to which you are not entitled were you honest.

Many people receiving spousal maintenance indulge in this deception, but that means they are simply prepared to thieve.

If the cohabitation breaks down, the process to increase spousal maintenance is a variation application, which will be considered at the time depending on circumstances.

My personal advice is to declare that you will be cohabiting as otherwise you will always have to keep an eye over your shoulder, since it will only be a matter of time before your ex objects to your thieving his money.

rugby333 wrote:

My personal advice is to declare that you will be cohabiting as otherwise you will always have to keep an eye over your shoulder, since it will only be a matter of time before your ex objects to your thieving his money.

Bikemad is a bloke.

Apologies.

Regarding capital: it is as before, cohabitation is not relevant.

Regarding child maintenance: same as before, cohabitation is not relevant.

Regarding spousal maintenance by payee: debatable. By way of example: suppose neither of you were going to cohabit and sm was set at £1,000. If she cohabits, then it is fair to expect that her partner make a contribution towards costs. Accordingly this figure may drop from £1,000 to say £700.

However, the opposite principle does not necessarily apply. Taking the above example: the court determines that she requires £1,000 per month to lead her life, why then should this figure increase because you (as payee) choose to live with someone else?

This non symmetrical approach makes sense for two reasons:

1. The nightmare scenario for a family (post divorce) is if the breadwinner throws his toys out of the pram and quits his job, because he is paying too high a percentage to his ex wife. If £1,000 is 50% of income and the court suddenly decides to up that to 60% based on his cohabitation, then there is a problem.

2. The receiver of maintenance is broadly paid on needs. Why does the payee cohabiting mean the receiver needs more? It doesn''t.

3. The court is always looking (if possible) to reduce interdependence between divorced couples rather than increase interdependence. This too makes sense. It therefore follows that a court is more likely to seek to reduce sm or to capitalise sm rather than increase sm.