You need to be careful that it doesnt look like e is entering bankruptcy to spite his ex wife. You say he's paying the mortgage but is that in fact maintenance agreed by the court for his children? If he is struggling to pay that amount then he needs to apply to court to reduce the maintenance payments.
I agree with the fact that Courts are biased towards the female. One of my clients, who was making a sensible offer of settlement, has been left with absolutely nothing - and his ex-wife has been left with a house which she cannot possibly afford in a million years.
Courts are not always biased towards the female. My ex could afford the fee's of a very good lawyer and barrister (£25,000 + in total). They certainly knew how to work it and tie everything in knots.
I ended up with very little and have struggled ever since.
Thats the same here, she got a 5 bed house and would never go out to work properly to pay for it, she does mobile hairdressing so she can hide most of her earnings and plead poverty in court. My husband has to pay maintenance for the kids (as he should) but he has to give her maintenance as well which can go up massively if the mortgage rate does, she got 68% of his pension and the £7000 lump sum.
He got given the £25,000 joint debt, and the judge called that fair. She wouldn't work so therefore paid nothing into that house and it was down to her alcoholism that the marriage died, so how is that fair?
She also wont take him of the mortgage like the settlement states as she claims to be in no position to, this means he will always be liable for a mortgage that he has no claim to the property, its also on an interest only mortgage so at the end of term they will chase him for the money owing.
I have also been divorced and all i wanted was for my ex husband to pay the csa level for the children and thats it, i didn't touch his pension as i dont feel that it is right that we should be able to basically nick something we have made no contribution to and that we should all be responsible for our on pension, we rented our property so no issue there but had we owned one i would have wanted it sold and a 50/50 split as i wouldn't want to live in a house i built up with him and have all the memories. I just wanted a clean break so we could both move on with our lives, why should a man be left responsible for a woman he is no longer married to?
Well i have to say Sus you are a rear case, also by the sounds of things your husband had money which does seem to be the only time a man can come out on top. Its the normal every day man that only has a house and pension to his name that seems to be made to suffer should his marriage fail, she is now living the life of luxury while my husband faces bankruptcy when it was him that provided everything for his family, how is that right?
I dont agree that the woman should be left with nothing either and this is where the courts seem to fail, they never get a fair balance, it seems to be all or nothing.
My husband offered her the house and for him to take all the debt from it, he just wanted to pay only for the children and to keep his pension, i think that fair, especially as that house has over £100,000 equity in it.
The thing is, the courts look at a wife as having contributed to the marriage by bringing up the children. I don't know how many children there are but often a house has to be sold if it is deemd to be too large for the remaining spouse & children. Thing is, when you divorce, neither spouse is as well off as before.
I'm sorry RHB but i completely disagree with you, yes us mum's do contribute by bringing up the kids but when those kids are at school all day i dont see how sitting on your a**e drinking all day and not feeding them as contributing. Also she is far better off now then she was whereas my husband is bankrupt, cheers to the court.
Trouble is, as a mum your on call 24 hours of the day. I have a job mornings only during school time but still have childcare problems when they are sick, their school closes etc. My ex on the other hand can please himself what to do with his time, whereas the carer has to fit in with the children. As I have said, the best route if your husband can't afford the payments would be to apply for a variation through the courts. No court would make him pay what he can't afford, but he does need to provide proof of this.
I can see both points of view, but I have to say that I do think men come off badly in divorce settlements, and I'm fed up with hearing about women who have only been married for a short time saying they are entitled to half of everything the man has.
And it works both ways - a friend of mine split up with his wife on account of her unreasonable behaviour and he has custody of their son (she's only allowed supervised access). She has never paid a penny in maintenance and has now decided she is entitled to half the proceeds of the house! He paid the mortgage and is now fully responsible for their son so why should she get half?
My OH was left with nothing when he divorced and his ex did ok, selling the house and being left with no mortgage while he (and now we) struggle. It's about time divorce settlements were worked out equally - I keep reading that women should be treated equally!
I am so glad that my divorce was sorted out amicably, as was hubbys. Everything was sorted out equally. His ex had custody of the kids, but we could have them whenever we wanted to. We are all now quite good friends.
I do agree that things should be sorted out equally and I do hate gold diggers who only marry to get whatever they can at the end of it.
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley. http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk
I'd been with my ex for 16 years when I decided enough was enough and divorced him for unreasonable behaviour. During that time he'd set up a buisiness, which we both worked in. Trouble was the company was just in his name and he refused point blank to make me a partner or director. As the company was Ltd and he was a director he could pay himself what ever he wanted and he produced pay slips showing he was paid the minimum wage.
This was his legal teams argument and hence why I ended up with very little.
I agree with you RHB, as Mums we are on call 24/7. My son goes to his Dad I night in 14 and he only lives a 5 minute walk away - that is it, no more responsibility on his part. This makes it very difficult to work and earn a decent wage.
RHB i do agree that generally the mother is left with the children and have the stress of trying to juggle work and kids, my children are 4 and 7 and their father has them every other weekend. But with my husband his kids are 12, 13 and 16 so very independent and generally are left alone, also while going through the divorce my husband wanted to have joint residency so he could have them as much as possible but she said in court and i quote "i dont want shared residency because i want get as much money" and nothing was said. Now if my husband had said he wants shared residency because he can then pay less what do you think the judge would have said?
Truth is he said that if she agreed to shared residency he would still pay top rate CSA, just didn't want to continue to be responsible for a woman he is no longer married to, and why should he?
And i disagree that the court wont make him pay more than he can afford as thats what got us in the IVA in the first place.
I think the point here anyway is that the courts need to start treating each case individually instead of this blanket attitude of the woman deserves the lot because she gave birth to the children. Yes if the ex husband cant be bothered to have much contact with the children or help out in emergencies then yes i think maybe there needs to be a bit more help for making life a bit easier for the mother, but i still dont see why that means the man gets left with absolutely nothing to his name.
As i say my ex has the children every other weekend and thats it, no extra on school holidays or anything, but i still only asked for maintenance for the kids, i am a grown woman capable of looking after myself, i didn't go for his pension either, thats his not mine.
As women give it this equal rights crap then stop expecting everything for nothing and provide yourself with a pension.
Divorce settlements are emotive and the only person who has heard and evaluated both sides of the story is the judge so his decision should be respected. At the end of the day, money awarded to the wife ultimately benefits the kids. Would their father see them go without because their mother is an alcoholic...as a mother I'm sure you k ow better than I do about putting your children's needs before your own.
