Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.
Divorce/Financial Settlement: Cannot afford solicitors(52 Posts)
Well that's it really. I can't afford it. I'm not entitled to Legal Aid as there is no DV involved.
I've posted on here a few times. I'm in the middle of sorting the financial settlement (20 year marriage, now DH will not disclose so I have filed form A to start financial settlement).
He/his solicitor are being very obstructive (will not answer any questions about finances).
I've spoken to several local solicitors. They have all been very NICE but have all said the same thing (which has surprised me) - that I should represent myself. They've all quoted between 10-50k for their own fees. One said to me today: "To be blunt, for what you are arguing over (we had cash of around 60k joint savings) using a solicitor will be disproportionate as you won't have anything left to argue about."
We have 50:50 shared care of the children. I just want 50% of the value of the house / savings / pension (which he can easily afford). I gave up my career to bring up the children for ten years, but I just want a clean 50% break.
I guess that I just have to get on with it, but on MN I've been told to get legal representation to sort this - but it does seem (with the amounts quoted) that this is just not viable.
Any advice? (Maybe I should just shut up and get on with it!)
I guess I just want someone to tell me it will be ok.
If he won't share 50/50 on an open and transparent basis, you could ask the judge for a fixed monthly payment to be made (ancillary relief) plus you should get child maintenance as well. It's his choice whether he plays fair now or whether he has to pay you a monthly "income" for the foreseeable future. I know what I would do if I am him...!
A bird in the hand Kate! Truly, I think you would be better to get a cash settlement that you can control than rely on maintenance that you would have to keep going to court to get paid. Do you know what would happen to the pension if he died early on in retirement for eg?
Because he has the children 50/50, he won't pay me any maintenance.
Could be rather than would be - you know your ex best.
He's clearly not being transparent, so you can threaten him with an ancillary relief and maintenance application to make him co-operate. if you have primary care for the child and you pay things such as school lunches, clothes, uniforms, dance classes etc, then you should get maintenance, whether he likes it or not. I would contact the Child Maintenance people and find out what your rights are. You don't have to enforce them against him, but it is good to let him know that you are making a concession if he will be cooperative on the financial side.
If he won't pay you maintenance (and clean breaks are much better in my view if you can survive that way) then he will know you are likely to get at least half the joint assets so I suspect the only thing you are both arguing over is he offers 30% of the pension (the main asset) and you want 50% I(and as C said above m ake sure you woudl end up with the same income as him in retirement, which may well be more than 50% of the pension). So write to them offering that and giving them some kind of time table to agree it - I think there has been be some kind of valuation of the pension done and then the pension splitting order and then that half or whatever is ear marked for you and he cannot touch it.
He says that because we have the children 50:50 then he won't have to pay maintenance.
Yes it is just the pension and the savings (that he says he has spent) which is the bone of contention. He also has all the furniture and the decent car and other things that I need to buy again - it's silly stuff like wardrobes and a CD player but I really need to start again. He's been making me live from month to month for over a year while he has spent the savings and I really need to sort it out now.
Thanks everyone for advice.
Surely just because he has spent it since you separated doesn't mean you don't still get half of what was there at date of spit. Also taking money in lieu of future pension can be more beneficial, it is worked out on the basis of what it will be in x amount of years time and how much he will be able to earn by then, you can invest how you want, If he is saying he won't pay you maintenance I would recommend you get everything you need now and then have nothing more to do with him financially.I took less than I was advised because I felt that clean break now was worth more peace of mind than years dragging through courts. Don't let him dictate what he wants to 'give' you. Tell him what you need and let him fight against it. Have you thought of mediation ? You will find that he doesn't have as much power of finances than he thinks he has.
Sorry to hear your situation. You should maybe try calling Law Express. They offer unbiased legal advice via telephone, for just £30 a call. No matter how long you're on the phone for, or how many questions you need to ask! Very useful service
Their website is : LawExpress.co.uk
Hope you manage to get things sorted soon!
Sadly if he has spent it it is gone and divorce finances are assessed at the point of divorce in England (not Scotland) not the point of separation. That is why someone I know found his wife froze all his bank accounts via her lawyers to stop him using the money for work purposes until the divorce was finalised for example. If the money is spent then it has gone even if one partner spent it on a new woman or drink or cocaine or expensive school trips for the children.
If he earns a lot more he should be paying you interim maintenance now . If you have been earning about the same then now. I earned 10x my ex so he wanted his income brought up to nearer my level for life and one reason he got more than half the assets was that I was buying out that claim on a clean break.
The things in the house should be shared. In our case he moved out and once I'd bought him out and he had enough cash (rather a lot) to buy the stuff again but in your case a valuation of the second hand car, furniture etc ( probably pretty low value) shoudl be done and then that go into the pot of asset values.
He HAS spent the savings, but he hasn't taken any money out of his company over the last year - so all his earnings are 'in the company'. This is about the same as the savings that we had. His solicitor says that the company mustn't be touched - but it's only the way he pays himself for self-employed work -there isn't anything to 'invest' in per se.
Therefore I think it's reasonable that I request half of whatever is in the company i.e. half of his earnings over the last year or so, that he hasn't taken out because he's lived on joint savings instead.
Does that seem reasonable?
OP - on the money in the company issue - keep an eye open for the final outcome of this case: www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed104052
If he's self employed I wouldn't hold your breath & that may be why the solicitors responded as they did.
Many people just don't have the money to pay solicitors, it can be very expensive indeed, around half of those that go to court represent alone, no solicitor, what you can have though is a friend to take notes and offer moral support, known as a Mckenzie friend, every little helps.
If the total pot of money is 60k then really you need to avoid solicitors or a big chunk will go to pay their fees.
Petrodel is a very particular case which involves piercing the corporate veil in relation to companies in which a husband apparently had no interest albeit that he received income .... Judgement will not be out for many months I suspect as the Supreme Court like to take their time. Your H's solicitor is simply wrong if he thinks the company can be kept out of the pot - who owns the shares? Who are the directors? What is the value of the fixed assets? How much cash in the bank does it have?
You can always pay for specific legal advice once you have exchanged Form Es and have seen what H says about the value of the company
The one thing that is clear is that there is much much more than £60 k in dispute ...
If he owns his own business than probably you are entitled to a share of that pot as well. When I first separated I had a figure in my mind of the value of the assets, but I was soon informed that it was more because our business was taken in to account. I should get legal advice asap.
Full service legal rep to trial will be 50k, but could only be 10 to 15k as most people settle way before trial. I would go and see a solicitor at stages of the process, get familiar with one, but represent yourself, do correspondence yourself, find out about the process and just ask for advice when you need it. I do lots of ad hoc advice for clients in this way., usually financially savvy people who are happy to deal with disclosure and answer or raise questions, but may need advice about the law when it comes to negotiating, and to draw up or comment on an agreement.
I agree with baby barrister - take it to court and ask for half of everything. He will have to disclose if it goes to court, the obligation on both of you will be full and frank disclosure. Companies can be tricky to value but there isn't much mystery about what is in bank accounts or pension pot.
This kind of dicking about is tedious and emotionally draining. If he is not prepared to try and negotiate outside of court proceedings, he is an idiot, but as he has nailed his colours to the mast I would just get on with it. Instructing a barrister via direct access might be the most cost effective way of going forward, so you can get some help and advice at the first appointment.
Yes, an asset is the company. Do you own shares in it? Does he own 100% of its shares? Does it have many assets other than the cash in it such as a freehold property or stock or machines?
As for hidden money this is quite a fun case to follow
I don't hold any stock in the company and he is the sole director. The only assets are his laptops etc.
It can be hard to value companies. For example my father was him business and when he died there was really no value. If I died I doubt there would be a saleable value so the asset in a sense is the income that person derives from the business. However many other types of businesss with staff and decent turnover do have a value - may be they would sell on the open market for a year's turnover or something like that. Indeed in one big divorce (owner of FCUK??) the wife's half of the shares was absolutely massive in value.
If his company is basically him and no one would probably buy the business and it doesn't have a huge lot of assets and properties then you may just want as much of the family assets as possible now as a clean break to be done with it - and he is offering 50% I think and then negotiate to get a fair share of the pensions where all the money was put.
Why not put an offer to his lawyers with a time limit to accept it and say if it is not accepted then you will start the court proceedings if they will not agree a consent order on the finances.
Perhaps try to find out the company's finances - you can buy the accounts at companieshouse.gov.uk. If the only asset is a lap top I suspect it is not really a company with much value unless it owns valuable inventions or anything like that and he is just choosing not to draw much cash out of the company at present.
The company is really just a way of him getting his self-employed earnings and paying less tax on them - there is nothing but his time to trade.
I don't want any part of it but my concern is that over the last year he has kept all his 'earnings' in the company and spent the joint savings instead.
Is it therefore reasonable of me to request half of the earnings that he has left in the company? (He says not.)
I have lodged Form A with the court already - I've made several offers which are reasonable but he won't accept them, and now won't answer any questions 'outside of the court process' according to his solicitor.
Sorry to hear that you have been refused legal aid but you are finding yourself in the same boat as many others.
You mention that you had a 20year marriage and there are children. Personally, based on the info you've given on this thread, I think you're being pretty lenient.
Your children would be entitled to maintenance. You don't mention their ages. This is relevant. Whilst you are in favour of a 50:50 split financially, I suspect that you would be entitled to more than this.
Ancillary relief is decided on many factors. These include ages of the parties; length of marriage; children of the marriage; ages of the children; their current and future needs; your current and future needs etc.
You mention that your earns much more than you do. This means, at the very least, that he can contribute towards the children. You also don't mention what you did for work? How were the arrangements of the children sorted during the marriage? Were you the homemaker and he the breadwinner? If this was the case then it would be harder for you re-start any career. Factors like these are taken into account when deciding ancillary relief. It's not always a simple factor of diving everything on a 50:50 basis when the scales are balanced unequally.
Hope that's given you food for thought.
Join the discussion
Please login first.