Divorce/consent order - is my mum being unreasonable?

[PeggyGuggenheim]

My parents split up last year, much bitterness and anger. My dad is living with his new partner (the woman he was having an affair with for the last five or so years, as it transpires.)

I thought that everything was done and dusted but my mum recently said, rather gleefully, that my dad had been trying to contact her to sign a consent order and she was just ignoring his messages and his lawyer's messages. My parents had no joint assets (not even a house) and he's broke, but she thinks he might inherit some money when his mother dies, and she wants to be able to put in a claim. She says that by signing the consent order she will be forfeiting any future rights to that theoretical dosh.

NOW my dad has emailed me asking my advice! As in "How shall I approach your mother, she's ignoring my messages"........

I'm wondering, should I ask my mom to just sign and be done? Like, if he DOES inherit something, surely there are other ways he could prevent her from getting it?

God I see why one needs lawyers in this life. What a suck. Thanks anyway mumsnetters.

I honestly can't believe people are discussing anyone's 'right' to an inheritance from someone who has not yet died, might not do for another 20 years, and might in any case not leave her estate to her son.

Nobody is entitled to any inheritance of any kind.

The ins and outs of the marriage and divorce and affair etc. are sad but that's not a reason to assume that she is entitled to a share of something that isn't an asset of the marriage, or shared accumulated wealth, or even wealth accumulated after the divorce from e.g. a business or investment started and supported during the marriage. We're talking about an inheritance. Totally different. If the OP's Dad wins the lottery in 10 years time is the Mum entitled to half of that too?

I am sure it is soul-destroying to be in that position, but divorce settlements are not meant to be punishments (although I am sure they often feel like it), they are meant to be a fair division of the marital assets.

If I were the OP I would be hoping that someone was talking to the gran about being very clear on her will who she would like to benefit from her estate.

D

PS Peggy - you have my sympathy our family went through exactly what you are going through and it was a shock to see how badly my father behaved.

no she wouldn;t be entitled to any lottery win but I understand she might be entitled to something which there is a "reasonable expecation of", so for example if they had been banking on his mothers money to pay of their mortgage then his wife may have a claim against that money. It may sound a foolish thing to do but people do (eg my brother!)

There is no expectation that he will win the lottery and they have not formed any plans n that basis.

He is not being "punished" - if they were married half that money would be hers by right. He is benefitting from the divorce. you have no idea how bitter my mohter is that my father got half her mothers money but she is not entitled to any of his. That isn't fair.

I suspect that the mother when she put her life in to her marriage and was the main bread winner assumed she was doing so in a "till death to we part" kind of way. If hse had known for the past 5 years she was being cheatd on she may have kept a bit back for herself.

Think I need to step away from this. Too close to my persoanl experiences. It is upsetting to think you would all view my lovely mother as "money grabbing" when the truth is that my father was a tight bastard who shafted her.

She was as awkward as possible and frankly I couldn't blame her. Have no doubt the OP's mother feels the same if she manages to get a share of her MIl's money (unlikely) I would congratulate her.

Kewcumber I can see your point about 'reasonable expectation of' if they had something planned for that money, I guess I'm just really uncomfortable making any kind of plans for money belonging to someone not yet dead who is perfectly entitled to leave the money to the dog's home if that is her wish.

Yes if they stayed married half the money would be hers by right, but that is because on the death of the grandparent if the money was inherited by the father it would in fact be inherited by the marital partnership and become an asset of the marriage. The woman is still alive and might yet leave the money to grandkids instead etc. (which is what I would be tempted to do if I was the grandparent in this situation).

And no I agree he's not being punished with regards to this particular issue, I was referring to all the general comments that implied that as she had been treated badly she deserved the money.

D

When I got divorced, I am sure that my solicitor told me that the spouse is not entitled to claim any share of inheritance. As a consequence, when dividing our estate, the £10K I inherited from my nan was taken into account, as was the £5K his nan gave him before her death (in lieu of inheritance). I am pretty sure I recieved £5K more than him in in the end because of this (the fact that he earned considerably more than me wasn't taken into account at all, which was a bit unfair on him, but as I left him the entire house contents I didn't feel too bad). I am not completely sure about this or whether it was just something we decided to do after listening to the solicitor (we only had one and we argued about nothing!).

"I guess I'm just really uncomfortable making any kind of plans for money belonging to someone not yet dead" - no neither am I but people do (going by threads on MN and my barking mad brother). I wouldn't say its common to be entitled to a share of an inheritance after a divorce but its certainly possible.

And yes I agree that we have no fault divorce in this country so finances should be divided fairly regardless of who cheated on whom. But to call someone a money grabber for possibly feeling that a share of her inlaws estate in a bitter divorce of a 35 year mariage, when you have no idea of the history of the break down is a bit rich.

I said I was going didn't I....

Peggy - whatever the circumstances, make sure that both your parents are taking proper, professional legal advice. Sounds like your dad already has a lawyer - your mum needs one too.

She's probably perfectly in the right wrt ignoring the consent form if she doesn't consent, whatever her reasons, but she really should make sure that's she's being advised by someone objective with professional understanding and experience.

One advantage of this is that the lawyers can communicate with each other about the details, and your dad doesn't have to pester your mum at all about any of the paperwork.

Agree with other posters that that should be the extent of your interference........

kewcumber you've probably gone now, but just in case - I agree that calling her money-grabbing without all the facts is a bit unfair, which is why I haven't done that.

D

Hey - bring on the scorn in cases of cheating. He was a complete bastard. But lets read OPs mums actions for what they are. She is hoping the slow moving cogs of the legal system will play out in her favour and she'll get a windfall from inheritance that may happen, after the marriage broke up.

Its money grabbing!

The sense of entitlement being shown by some posters is just shocking. The only time future earnings are considered or justified is where both partners contributed to the earning potential (i.e started a business together). Just being together for 35 years doesnt mean she gets to pick from his future wealth when they split.

Here's a question to all those saying that the wife has a claim to the husbands possible future inheritance: if the wife wins three million pounds on the lottery this weekend does the husband have a claim to it? The principle is the same: additional income gained after the relationship has finished which has not been dependent on either member of that relationship.

And further, while I wouldn't necessarily say the wife in the OP is 'moneygrabbing', the concept of refusing to consent to a divorce because your ex partner may come in to some money soon is, if not moneygrabbing, pretty odious.

exactly. Don't see why people think she'd be entitled to money that was earned after the divorce and had nothing to do with her? The logic of splitting finances regardless of the bread winner is normally based on the fact that the bread winner was able to achieve their desirable financial position as they had a support system in place which allowed them to do so. So if this was a pension he'd been paying into thanks to a nice job he was able to committ to due to having a wife at home to help him look after things while he worked, then yes I'd see her entitlement to her share of that pension when it starts to be paid out.
If however they divorce and in 20 years time a relative leaves either of them a good deal of money or one wins the lotto then why would the other have any claim? the acquisition of that money had absolutely nothing to do with them and they in no way contributed to it so why would they be entitled to a penny of it?

I think it's more that the husband has thought all this through sufficiently to get the right paperwork in place for her to sign. It's not enough that he cheated for 5 years and has left his wife for the other woman, he now wants to make sure his wife can't get anything from him. It's cold. I think that is why the wife is being so gleeful about putting a spanner in the works and I wouldn't blame her for that. It probably isn't really about the money, more about upsetting the husband.