DH's ex wife spending divorce proceedings like water

[TwattyvonTwatofTwatsville]

Back story.. after a very long and protracted divorce (drawn out by the ex wife) and huge legal bills, my DP's ex was awarded, reluctantly by the judge ALL of the proceeds of sale of the marital home. This was in order for her to clear her CC debts she had run up and buy a house outright for her and their two children. The ex has made no effort to get a job in the 4 years since they had separated (despite the chiidrrn being in their teens) so had no mortgage raising capacity whatsoever. Although the judge criticised her for this, the priority was housing he children, and rightly so. DP kept his pension but nothing 'liquid'.

I don't have an issue with the ruling, however the marital home has finally sold, almost 18 months after the divorce was finalised, she has a substantial amount of money in the bank, but the town she lives in and wants to continue to live in is expensive. The money left is enough, just, to clear her debts and buy a modest 3 bed house outright. But she has chosen to move into an expensive rental, buy a 20k car and started booking holidays. She continues to ' work ' in her own, loss making business and has never attempted to get a real job so still can't raise a mortgage.

By our calculations, given what she has spent already she now won't have enough to buy anything. If she stays in her very nice rental for the next year she will have spent 18k on rent in a year and this will further scupper any chance she will have of buying a house for her and the kids.

My question is, does DP say anything or is it none of his business? It is his children's chance of a secure home and inheritance that is being jeopardised, then again, she is a grown woman so should he keep his mouth shut and let her make her own mistakes?

It is worth noting that she is both totally rubbish with money and obsessed with outward appearance- clothes, cars, to be seen to be doing well is very important to her.

[smallmercys]

The OP may be emotionally invested in DPs financial troubles, but they are just that - his, not hers. They aren't married and right now the law would not look at OP's concerns as relevant, whatever plans she and DP may have for the future.

Its obviously being a hard pill for her to swallow, but they are not her monkeys, etc.

[leannerosecooper]

Why is everyone saying it is not the OP's business?! That money was specifically meant and only given to her for BUYING a house for the children's future. If she is just going to throw it away and spend lavishly she is going to end up in debt, and be in the same position again. The OP is connected to the exW through her DP and if the exW cannot provide housing for her children that means the OP and DP will have to - which is very much the OP's business!
The OP's DP is probably upset with his exW spending and rightly so as he also owned the house and would have put his hard earned money into it.

Caring about the future of her step kids is very much the business of the OP.

[Oldie2017]

Good point, George on age 55 pensions.
I cashed all of mine very recently when I turned 55, paid a lot of tax on it (lucky tax man).... and used the rest of housing for the older children (my choice as I will work until I die anyway).

My order says (sorry about pdf pasting);;;
"S a v e as p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h i s O r d e r t h e
P e t i t i o n e r ' s a n d t h e R e s p o n d e n t ' s c l a i m s f o r f i n a n c i a l p r o v i s i o n , p e n s i o n s h a r i n g a n d
p r o pe r t y a d j u s t m e n t o r d e r s d o s t a n d
d i s m i s s e d a n d n e i t h e r t h e P e t i t i o n e r n o r
t h e R e s p o n d e n t s h a l l t b e e n t i t l e d t o m a k e a n y s u c h f u r t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o
t h e m a r r i a g e u n d e r t h e M a t r i m o n i a l C a u s e s A c t 1 9 7 3 s e c t i o n 2 3 ( l ) ( a ) o r ( b ) a n d n e i t h e r o f t h e m w i l l
o n the d e a t h o f t h e o t h e r b e e n t i t l e d t o a p p l y f o r a n O r d e r u n d e r t h e I n h e r i t a n c e ( P r o v i s i o n f o r F a m i l y a n d D e p e n d e n t s ) act 1 9 7 5 ."

That is our clean break wording.

[StepCatsmother]

There was no mention of clean break in her ruling.

It won't necessarily use the words 'clean break' - one of the standard ways of wording a clean break order is:

^“Save as provided for in this order, the applicant’s and the respondent’s claims for periodical payments orders, secured periodical payments orders, lump sum orders, property adjustment orders, pension sharing orders and pension attachment orders shall be dismissed, and neither party shall be entitled to make any further application:

in relation to the marriage for an order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 section 23(1)(a) or (b); or,

Upon the death of the other for an order under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, section 2.”^

So you're looking for a clause which dismisses their entitlement to make any further claims on each other.

[ShiftyLookingBadger]

Oh OP, don't listen to the haters. It must be aggravating watching her flitter away money that is essentially meant for the kids. Not only should it have put a secure roof over their heads but also, there goes their inheritance. Unfortunately unless the judge made it a compulsory legal instruction there's nothing you can say or do. ExW sounds like a selfish cow, unfortunately it's her kids who will suffer in the long term but I'm sure they're old enough to understand what their mother is like.

[Iwanttobe8stoneagain]

Sorry / I've just married you off! And I echo getting legal advice, money grabbers like this have no morals. I would have thought the court could tell her to get off her arse and work. But doesn't sound like they will. See if the kids. An live with you

[Iwanttobe8stoneagain]

It is your DH business though, he has lost out financially so ex can provide a stable home for their kids. She is behaving in a reckless way that jepodises the stability of their kids. As it is your husband it is by default your business. What's she going to do once money has gone? Finally get off her arse and get a job??? She sounds like a selfish money grabber to me who is putting her wish for a designer life over the needs of her kids. I'd be working out if the kids could live with you to give them some stability whilst their mother is leaking the money meant to provide for them (and before she finds some other poor bloke to bleed dry). Your DH must be so angry

[LazyDailyMailJournos]

My house is in my name and will stay that way. He isn't on the mortgage and won't be so I would hope that it is safe.

But the moment that you get married, it will become an asset of the marriage. Even if you aren't married and only living together there is nothing to stop her arguing that his housing needs are being met by you, therefore he should surrender part of his pension and/or pay lifetime maintenance to keep a roof over her head.

Again, do not move in together until you have made sure that HIS legal arrangements are water tight and therefore cannot affect you. The moment you start co-habiting it will muddy the waters, so make life simple for yourself and don't do it.

[PigletWasPoohsFriend]

She'll come back to try to extend the term of the wife maintenance.

Which is what I and other posters said from the beginning.

[TwattyvonTwatofTwatsville]

babybarrister - without the s28A
bar could she apply to Court to EXTEND the term of the spousal maintenance as well as apply to increase the amount?

All maintenance stops when the youngest is 18 currently. I know she can easily apply for an increase, but if it is states it stops is 2020 could she potentially apply for the spousal element to be extended by a number of years?

We are going to talk to a solicitor next week with our concerns and see if there is anything we can do to minimise the risk to us. My house is in my name and will stay that way. He isn't on the mortgage and won't be so I would hope that it is safe.

[Lonecatwithkitten]

It may have cost me a lot of money, but I insisted a upon a clean break. I am the RP and a higher earner, my solicitor wanted to include a 50p spousal maintenance from him to me. But I knew ExH would burn through the money and could see the risks of him coming back to me a reversing the spousal.
It was worth every penny it cost me.

[LazyDailyMailJournos]

Get yourself to a solicitor NOW.

He needs legal advice - I echo the suggestion to use a different firm. A fresh pair of eyes is useful. If there are loopholes available where she could come back and ask for more money then he needs to address those now.

You also need legal advice about what living together - and potentially getting married will mean for you. I cannot urge you strongly enough NOT to live with this man until you have ensured that your own financial position is protected and he has is legal agreements in order. Do you want a situation where you are working to support the pair of you, because every penny he has - including his pension - is going on lifetime support to his Ex?

[NotKKW]

I can see why the OP is worried. Once all the money is gone, and the ex isn't working, she's going to need money to keep a roof over the children's heads. I wonder where she'll ask for it first.... not that I'm cynical

[GeorgeTheHamster]

(Your partner may be able to take money out of his pension at 55 btw - if it is defined contribution type not defined benefit type.)

[GeorgeTheHamster]

Oh crap. No s28 1A bar is bad news. She'll come back to try to extend the term of the wife maintenance.

I wouldn't marry him. Live with him if you want to (I won't do that either, but that's me). But don't marry him, you can't secure your position properly if you do.

[Oldie2017]

And if it is revised it could be changed to a clean break if your partner can afford it but that might mean a big pay out now (and don't you pay any of that - it's your partner's liablity). The reason most people don't get a clean break is there is not enough money in the marriage or they cannot take out a new much bigger mortgage to pay the spouse off all at once. My ex husband wanted maintenance for life plus half the assets and his clean break came about because we negotiated about 60% to him with no obligation to support the children (a massive saving for him) and I took on an over £1m mortgage to pay him off. Everyone's situation is different which is one reason English divorce law does not have clear simple always applicable rules although it makes it very hard for people to know where they stand.

This is quite a good summary of the rules www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/guidance-on-financial-needs-on-divorce-june-2016-2.pdf

[IdaDown]

I say again, get a solicitors appointment for YOURSELF

You need to know how moving in and marrying DP might be affected by the ex wife.

You have assets and DC to protect.

If it's going to be too much risk, consider not marrying / moving in DP - given the circumstances surely DP will understand - at least look at the possibility until the settlement order can (?) be revised.

[Oldie2017]

I got a clean break and it sounds from what your partner's order says it was not a clean break (most people cannot afford clean breaks and if they have been happy with the inequality of a spouse at home (more fool people who do that in my book) then that is the risk they take. It is awful. He is well rid of her and her spend spend spend mentality. It sounds like she will have a right to come back for more. He neesd a family solicitor to advise not us but as far as I know even if the order says 1p maintenance a year the spouse can come back for more later. Ours was not that - it was a clean break on the basis he got my life savings, shares, more than half the equity and wold never have to pay a penny for the children (nor realyl see them nor help with them 0 his silly choice) and that I bear 100% of the full time childcare costs, school fees and now all the university costs.

So this wife spends like water. I think when the children reach university stage then some support direct to the university (I am about to pay the rent for the twins direct to the university - so no chance of it being dissipated) might be kind for those children. It sounds like their mother is useless with money. i earn a lot by my car is worth £1k for example. Not surprisingly therefore I have been able to help the older 3 children buy a property and I've always worked full time no matter how hard that was even with babies.

Anyway to protect your own position I would not marry him personally. I will never marry again and in fact the best thing I have done for my teenagers is never move a man into this house - they are so very lucky not to have had to tolerate a step father actually in my view but then some do manage it. it's not easy. So for you why marry - he will just hvae a massive claim on your assets in future - 60% of secomnd marriages with children break up so more likely than not you will be involved in a divorce later. If you really have to marry him then both take legal advice well before the wedding, both make full disclosure of your assets and income and liability; both have a separate solicitor, and make sure the pre nup is fair on both sides and even then it is not 100% sure it will be followed by the courts.

[Allthebestnamesareused]

OP -- Your DH could have asked for a pension share and for some of the proceeds of sale from the matrimonial home rather than retain his pension and her get the proceeds.

In their summing up the judge awarded it that way so she "could" rehouse herself and her children which if it had been a pension split and smaller cash she couldn't have. The reality is she has chosen not to and I have never in all my years in law seen a court order stating how the proceeds had to be spent merely that was the reasoning behind the award.

Your husband was awarded his pension because as (you have stated yourself) he is a high earner and thus in a better position to get a deposit together in a shortish amount of time and also to get a mortgage.

It is quite usual for the split to be 70/30 in high-earner/SAHP situations so I suspect there was a penalty of 10% for her frivolous spending post split but pre-divorce reflected in a 60/40 split.

It is galling that she has made what you consider to be unwise choices but it is, I am afraid, up to her how she spends her money. As regards children's inheritance - there is no law in England and Wales to leave anything to children (unless they are dependant children) and even then it comes from what you have not from what you had at a certain point in time.

I would definitely look at getting a pre-nup etc yourself.

The maintenance will stop when the youngest child is 18 unless she applies before to try to vary it. Then it would only be the spousal element that could be ordered to be past that date (unless DP agreed which I assume he won't). In view of her lack of judgment I suspect she may not even realise this. It is very unusual for their to be a global maintenance award including spousal maintenance. It is much more usual for their to be a maintenance award with regard to the children and then a separate spousal award.

Where many have come unstuck is that the spouse may be awarded 5p a year and people just agree it as it is so small without realising that this actually leaves spousal maintenance open to be looked at again should the spouse apply to court if their circumstances were to change eg. if they lost their job.

I assume the order also deals with her not be able to claim from his estate etc were he to die.

I think its a case of grit your teeth and let her get on with it.

Yes, although the kids don't magically disappear at 18 legally unless there is agreement from the non-resident partner their financial liability (if not moral responsibility) stops at this point unless there is a valid court order that allows an ongoing liability e.g. through tertiary education.

From her point of view (the ex's) she may be renting in an expensive area to see the last of her kids through education until she then moves to a cheaper part of the country to house herself and any of the children who want to remain at home or go back home during uni holidays etc.

Annoying as it is try not to let it get to you.

[bengalcat]

Glad you're not living together/married yet . Seek independent legal advice for yourself so you're forewarned unless you'd be ok about supporting him / losing a % of your current and or future assets if you and he separated some way down the line .

[BengalGal]

purplemeddler (how do you make the name biold and link?) mortgage amounts and rents are not really related. I'm sure you know this. Rent pricesare local, mortgage rates national. She can't get a mortgage without paid employment for at least a year (or a profitable company), so it's rent or buy for her. Rightmove can tell you the rents for your area.

[BengalGal]

The rent being high or low totally depends where you live. The op said she lived in an expensive town. (Suggesting she should move? Terrible for the kids in the midst of a levels and GCSEs). Simply being an hour from London means our town requires 2500 pm for a half decent three bed. Ours was nothing special, a row house, 4 bed, no yard, 3000 pm. We were lucky to get it. 1500 will get you. 3 bed dump if you are lucky. I doubt 1500 is a lot for a 3 bed in her town.

Of course she could have bought a cheaper car, but the price she paid was average for the U.K., not extravagant.

The 7 k vacation right after the divorce. That qualifies as extravagant, though mostly it is the destination that cost.. I wonder if she was trying to irk her ex. He does watch her finances mighty closely for someone who is divorced and only required to support the family for three more years.

She spent 500£ a month on clothes or 6k a year. Presumably for the children too as they grow like weeds those years. That is high. Though hardly hugely extravagant. It is probably just what she was used to, or perhaps much less than she was used to and she had trouble adjusting further.

The fact that she ran up the credit cards though shows she is totally un savvy financially. Interests rates are crazy on those.

But honestly, though it might impact you,, maybe, if a judge rules he should give her more before the 3 years expires, the chances of that are low. Particularly if there is evidence of being silly about money (e.g. No house or savings for house after kids leave). It's really really unlikely they would go against the previous ruling and change the timeframe. It seems the amount of interest and supervision of her spending you two have way way outweighs the risks you face. And if someone were watching me like that I would resent it a lot.

Try to focus instead on the positive. She's a good mom to her kids you say. Focus on that so everyone can get along. The kids are going to notice everything. The more positive you and their dad can be about her, the better for all. Consult a lawyer (dad should anyway) but I'm sure he will be told the chances of the court revising the time frame are virtually null. It's also unlikely she will run through all this money in three years at her current rate of spending, given that there was enough to buy a three bed house in the first place. Worst case he might have the monthly support amount go up a bit, but only for a year or two. Even that I suspect is unlikely but worth checking with an expert.

[Purplemeddler]

She pays 1500k a month on rent for her family. Not extravagant.
She bought a 20k car for the family

Sounds extravagant to me. I paid £10K for my last car which was only 2 years old and perfectly suitable for a family.

And my mortgage was £1300 a month and I thought that was a lot.