Can dh divorce me for unreasonable behaviour when I have not been unreasonable?

[weekendninja]

Following my dh's affair we have separated. The OW is from overseas and from what I can gather he wants to move her to the UK but this will be extremely difficult unless he is divorced from me. He has said that we could divorce on the grounds of his adultery.

I have very little money at the moment and I also am in no real rush to divorce...I feel that he's going to be needing it before I do and hopefully I can use this to bargain my financial settlement. What I want to know is, can he divorce me on the grounds of my unreasonable behaviour of which there is nothing I can think of. There is also the two year separation but I have a feeling he won't like this because of the time.

Your advice/knowledge is appreciated.

[mrsdavidbowie]

Mine divorced me on grounds of unreasonable behaviour even though my "unreasonable behaviour" is I didn't love him, was caused by his own U.B.

[OutrageousFlavourLikeFreesias]

So sorry you're dealing with such a difficult situation.

I think the reality is that no judge will force a couple to stay married when one of them clearly wants to leave the marriage. "Unreasonable behaviour" is basically the reasons why one of you doesn't want to be married any more. So I think he probably can come up with a list of reasons that a judge will accept even if they're not objectively all that terrible.

Again I'm so sorry you're having to deal with this.

[Sidge]

You could instigate the divorce on the grounds of his adultery and he could agree to pay all costs. That would be a quick and "easy" way to divorce relatively quickly.

[weekendninja]

Thank you for your replies. It really is a crap situation.

I would hate for my unreasonable behaviour to be cited as the reason of our divorce after I called time after his second affair. I know that in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter but it does twist the knife slightly.

Looks like I am going to have to get a watertight divorce with regards to our finances as we will be financially tied for the next three years - I'm in the final year of retraining, so that's why I'm vulnerable.

[ivykaty44]

Why would you want to stay married?

If the reason the !marriage broke down was adultary then divorce on those grounds and let him pay.

[BareGorillas]

Am I right in thinking the preferred (by the courts) process is that the financial settlement should be in place before the absolute can be made? In which case does it really matter what the grounds are- how is it going to go any better financially in your favour if you are to prolong it? Genuine thought/question btw, not having a go.

[weekendninja]

That's fine Bare. He wants to bring the OW to live with him in the UK so I have a feeling that his desperation will enable me to gain a bigger percentage on the equity on the properties we have iyswim?

I was under the impression following my visit to the solicitor that we would have to remain financially linked until my income allows me to take on the mortgage, which will be in three years. She said ideally the courts would like a clean break but without me and the DC's moving out if the house this doesn't seem possible and obviously not what I want to do

[weekendninja]

Ivy, I would rather be divorced but after the past six months and because I'm in the midst of retraining I don't feel I have the money or the mental strength at the moment.

[ivykaty44]

Then tell him you don't have the money to divorce or want the angst so he better pay and keep it simple otherwise you will sit on it....that way what's he likely to do?

[weekendninja]

That's what I was thinking Ivy. I suspect he will start pressurising for a divorce, which he can have as long as he pays for the majority of costs and is fair. I don't want to take him to the cleaners and would be happy with a 60/40 split of equity in my favour. His earnings far exceed what mine will when qualified by approximately £25k a year.

[Horsemad]

Personally I'd go for a 70/30 split. If he refuses that, he might agree to 60/40 thinking it's the better deal If he's a high earner, he can afford it and if he wants a quick easy divorce, he will probably be happy to go along with it.

[STIDW]

It doesn't really matter who divorces whom. The reason for divorce has no bearing on the financial settlement and in England & Wales the public record, the absolute, doesn't record the reason for divorce. All the other papers are archived by the court and eventually destroyed.

Unless there is evidence such as a written confession that your husband has had sexual intercourse with the other woman adultery can be hard to prove. On the other hand mild allegations such as being ignored, spending too much time with friends or doing hobbies/social media/watching TV, being a spendaholic and lack of interest of an intimate nature are enough for divorce to be granted for unreasonable behaviour.

If the reason for divorce and paying for it can be agreed it means your time, energy, and money can be better focussed on sorting out the arrangements for the children and finances. There is no point in making negotiations more difficult and protracted than they need to be by inflaming the situation more than necessary. The costs of the actual divorce pales into insignificance compared to fighting through the courts over the finances. That can cost tens of thousands of pounds or more and each spouse is responsible for their own costs in financial proceedings.

The courts cannot make an effective order settling the finances on divorce until after the first part of the divorce (the nisi decree) has been granted. So the practice is usually to apply for the nisi before sorting the finances. A clean break is when the financial ties between spouses end. A financial settlement can split the assets and defer a clean break so spouse maintenance is paid for a few years to allow for a period of readjustment. However when there are children sometimes a nominal amount, say £1/annum, of spouse maintenance is paid until the youngest child reaches 18 or finishes uni. That is so the children don't suffer undue hardship if the parent with the majority of childcare is unable to work because of redundancy or ill health.

[STIDW]

BTW the parent with the majority of care doesn't necessarily receive more than 50% of the assets. Divorce settlements depend on the particular facts. The value of any assets (including pensions) held in joint and sole name forms the matrimonial pot to be shared according to a checklist of factors in s25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Although the welfare of children is the priority when there are more than enough assets to meet the needs of both parties, in particular for housing, and no exceptional contribution from one party there is less justification to move away from sharing assets 50:50. IF there are enough assets to house everyone and a marriage was short the split may be more like 30:70 in favour of the spouse who brought assets to the marriage. On the other hand, although it is rare, if there are hardly any assets the parent with the major responsibility for housing the children may need 100% of the assets to keep a roof over the heads of the family.

Mathematical percentages are the finishing point. The starting point is to consider local property prices and both parties mortgage raising capacities and then work through the figures to find a solution that can work for everyone. Negotiating a settlement can take a long time and if no agreement can be reached it takes at least around 10 months to go all the way through court proceedings and it can be considerably longer.

[nailsathome]

Mine divorced me for UB which was that I no longer wanted to live with him because of his UB