I can't be, surely?

[ThunderInMyHeart]

Normally I would consider this question to have an obvious answer, but wanted to make totally sure by asking an AIBU. Thank you in advance for any input.

Married 2 years. I am currently employed earning around £35k. Husband unemployed but has savings of around £225,000. Separate finances since marriage started to go downhill. I have savings of about £25k. We are mid-20s.

He's having various problems at the moment and accuses me of 'squirreling away' my wages. We've been on the brink of divorce for a while. He thinks that if I were a good wife, I would have offered to pay for his counselling (depression from unemployment etc) as he doesn't have an income.

WTF? He's got hundreds of thousands?! Why should I be the cash cow?

If this were a happy marriage, then yes, we would have joint finances and I would therefore be paying, theoretically, 50:50 for his therapy. Is he not squirreling away his money by not spending it and looking at me to bankroll him instead?

His justification is that I have an income, and he doesn't. I thought interest could be deemed an income though, hmm!

Manual labour for 3 weeks would not be worth pursuing - did your father pay for materials also?

If all of this is about feeling bad for what your Dad did for you without return, couldn't you finance the cost of a holiday for him out of your own savings?

ThunderInMyHeart Tue 12-Mar-13 17:09:59
Euro - do you have legal experience at all? I am relying on e-mails he has written saying how it is his intention that I have 50:50 legal ownership on whatever is his. They were written in the run up to our wedding.

-----

I've been a lawyer for 14 years, love.

And, Euro, what do you make of the OP's position re promissory estoppel?

My understanding is that promissory estoppel prevents one party from withdrawing a promise made to a second party if the latter has reasonably relied on that promise. [my italics]

Extracts from my student law books below:

In English law, a promise made without consideration is generally not enforceable. It is known as a bare or gratuitous promise. Estoppel is not an exception to this rule. [my italics]

Promissory estoppel requires:
1.an unequivocal promise by words or conduct [sounds like OP has this in her fiance's emails]
2.evidence that there is a change in position of the promisee as a result of the promise [can't see that the OP has this - she would have to be able to demonstrate that she wouldn't have lived in rented accommodation or incurred living expenses had her fiance not promised to buy a house for them to live in at some unspecified future point in time]
3.inequity if the promisor were to go back on the promise [again, I can't see how the OP can argue this because what's inequitable about her leaving without a stash of his inheritance?]

In general, estoppel is 'a shield not a sword' ? it cannot be used as the basis of an action on its own. It also does not extinguish rights.

Estoppel is an equitable (as opposed to common law) construct and its application is therefore discretionary.

There are more complex rules associated with the enforcement of debts, but as far as we know from the OP's posts there are no debts involved.

come off it. needs only from inherited wealth. partic inherited wealth pre marriage.

Ar v AR
Y v Y
Robson etc

PE in a divorce case? hahahahahahahaha

Cinnbar I think that is known technically as a "non-starter".

Threads like this irritate me. The OP is getting some good advice but rejecting most of it.

narows eyes

You aren't being unreasonable.

He sounds like he's already detached from the marriage to you in his mind, but he seems to want to stay married to your money...

asking you to pay for his therapy (even though he has more money than you!)

emotionally blackmailing you about it

buying a something for £400 from his own money 'to cheer himself up' (double )

He sounds like a child hoarding his 20 sweets but whining that another doesn't share their 4 sweets with him. or some other crap analogy!

Get out of there and come for a drink with me (and bring the koala )

I'm sure your dad would be happier if you just got out too, although I completely get the principal..

It sucks now but if you can, imagine your life in a year. You could be sunning it up somewhere with your mates and a margarita, or being flattered and flirted with by someone new, or leaps further in your career, and look back and think "Whew, I'm glad I got that done and dusted when I did"

Or you could be struggling to keep someone happy, paying both your ways while he sat on his moneypot, possibly with not enough energy/will left to put 100% into your job/your own life/Koala's wellbeing.

gosh is this thread still going.

op I think you are at it, and I do not think this thread is what it seems from your original post. You clearly have taken lots of legal advice and looked into divorcing him at length. I cannot work out what your motives are, but I do not think this thread is what is seems.

For that reason I am reporting you. If I am wrong, then I wish you well.

Euro - I didn't mean that question sarcastically or anything. I'm just weary of people with no legal background giving their ill-informed two cents.

Damn! Forget about the 'shield and not a sword' thing.

Um, I'm not sure what else this thread could be to warrant someone reporting it? But, ok, and thanks for your good wishes anyhow.

Thanks for all the replies - I can see that I'm not going nuts and that HIBU as regards the original question pitched.

Euro - sorry, just read all your posts. I'm not rejecting it. I was very much reassured when you mentioned your legal experience. I guess it's more angst at principles vs the reality.

Thank you for your input though and, really, I have taken it in.

Oh, Cinnabar, I meant PE in regards to my father having done work on the house. This isn't the hosue that DH promised to buy with his savings.

I'm sorry I have no advice about your situation but I HAVE to know what pet it is. Please!! I HAVE TO KNOW!!

you could pm me, I won't tell anyone else

Your father will not be able to invoke promisory estoppel with regard to his labour costs. He would have to recoup the money in the same way he would any other unpaid bill.

The onus is on him to prove they had actually agreed a fee which was then withheld, though.

Ok, thanks flogging.

Executive summary: IANBU as regards the paying for his therapy.

And

Get the heck out now!