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.

[Malbecqueen]

I'm a lawyer - but not a family one so don't know the ins and outs and haven't read all the comments -but I would strongly advise you to go back to your lawyer to clarify the position. If she can apply to vary the payments, she will. You may want to consider applying to vary the order yourself so the kids come and stay with you (thereby removing the need for maintenance) or for specifying the precise maintenance payments that will be met (not global payments). At the end of the day, there may not be an obvious solution- particularly as you will need (and want) to put the children first regardless of their mum's spending habits, but at least you will have a better idea of where you stand. If there is a risk of her coming back for more, you need to start collating evidence now- e.g. a copy of the advertised rental price etc. I know it sounds harsh but you have to protect your position

[cheval]

Of course it is yours and partner's business as there are children involved. And if the court order stated the money was for a particular purpose, I would get to a lawyer asap before it's all gone. Someone will have to pick up the pieces afterwards otherwise. And that will be you and your OH.

[sleeponeday]

Lots of posters have drawn attention to the fact that the youngest child will be 18 in under 3 years as though kids these days suddenly up and leave home and become independent at that age. Some do, undoubtedly, but lots don't these days - they still need housing and although we would have the kids if they couldn't live with mum I think it would be unbelievably sad if she couldn't provide a home for them where they both had their own room.

So this has moved from whether it directly affects you, to thinly veiled attacks on her ability to care for the children in a manner you regard as appropriate, into their adult lives?

The kids are living in a nicer home than they would have if their mother bought, by your own account, and living a better lifestyle than she could otherwise afford. Perhaps she's made the choice to buy a flat when they leave home, and keep them in the standard of living they had before the split with the money, first? As long as she can't come back and ask for more after the kids leave home, then again, none of your business what she does. Nor his. his is absolutely none of your business - lots of people in this world manage their money poorly. Why are you involved in this? I was sympathetic when I thought you were directly affected, but you aren't, and as far as I can see, nor is your partner.

[BengalGal]

I think you and many others are giving this ex wife too much grief. And looking too closely at her life with a lens of monetary paranoia perhaps.

Running through money like water, You say, but paying only 18k a year for a three bedroom rental. Here, an hour from London, you would be lucky to get a 2 bed for the same 1500 pm. It would not be anything nice. We paid 3k per month for a very ordinary row house, no yard. So she is not really being extravagant on rent unless she is in a very inexpensive area, and you said it was not.

20k on a car is not that high for a new car that can hold everyone and a friend or two. Not cheap but hardly wildly extravagant, it just the average price in the U.K. for a new car. A small New VWGolf is 19k£.

So she took some vacations. That's the only extravagance you've mentioned. The rest is not. She is providing for her kids with the rental and car. She might be waiting to get a smaller house for herself and avoid selling again. Spending 54k on a rental for three years so you can buy a smaller house in a few years would be sensible.

We are talking three more years of support for her and the 15 and 17 year old. If she could have purchased a new three bed house she has enough to support them however she chooses for the next three years. After that it's up to the parents and all voluntary. If your partner doesn't want to pay for Uni, he doesn't have to.

I don't think it's unreasonable to be worried, but it is not your business really, until and unless it impacts your family, and it is not at all clear it will. talk of lawyers and homelessness is silly. The court can't dictate how she spends her money, nor can another person. The kids will be fine for three years at least. It's unlikely the kids or she will need more from him in next three years. After that he's not obligated. Yes, maybe a court could say he should support her more. It's very unlikely they would change the time frame. After 15 years of marriage and her not having a career you are lucky he doesn't have to support her for much longer. 60/40 split of the assets seems fair with her having the kids most of the time. The spousal support does not seem generous. And it's not clear she is really extravagant.

[Passenger42]

the ex wife might have it all planned as to what she intends to do with her money. Not everybody wants to own a property or pass it on to children. She may be happy to live the high life until it's all spent and then put her name down for social housing! She may think her cc judgements can stay where they are, as She is buying with cash so lack of credit isn't an issue until the money runs out. She may plan to buy a cheap pad abroad when the kids turn 18. Some people only want to live for now and keeping up a lifestyle image with nice car and nice area to rent in might be all she is interested in. She might be hoping to remarry and move into someone else's house and looking good is her priority. You can't put your values on someone else. She might regret her choices later but that's her look out.

[AcrossthePond55]

It's a bit ant and grasshopper, isn't it? The ex-wife hasn't worked in years (which will make finding employment difficult) and yet appears to be spending money that should be providing for her security. What will happen when the youngest turns 18 and maintenance stops? She'll have no income and no mortgage-free home. Unfortunately there's nothing OP nor her DP can really do about that if she's determined to pursue her current course. Nor should the OP get involved.

All the DP can do is seek legal advice to clarify his financial position with regards to his ex ever being able to come back and claim further maintenance. Assuming he's assured that she will not be able to make any further claim for support, then he may want to speak to her out of concern for her own future security, to impress on her that in three years' time she may well find herself destitute.

[Smudge100]

It's very much your DH's business because he is the children's father. If he had a clean break divorce, which is likely, she won't be able to come after him for more money but i imagine he still has the children's welfare at heart and it's therefore reasonable for him to ask her why she hasn't followed the court's directive to ensure the children are securely housed. She's obviously a complete flake and for that reason he should intervene on their behalf.

[Ktown]

If I was your DH id be pissed off that the kids won't inherit anything from her. But apart from that there isn't a lot you can do.
3 years in a nice house is absolutely nothing for the kids. They sound like they will be worrying about their mum once they leave home as her standard of living will drop. But this is her choice, and she is an adult.
Lots of people enjoy money when they have it and then deal with it when they don't.
Your DH can only foot the bill for another 3 years for her so it isn't a massive deal.

[BengalGal]

I would still like to know where the evidence of all this extravagance is. She's not necessarily any of the negatives people have said.

She pays 1500k a month on rent for her family. Not extravagant.
She bought a 20k car for the family. Hardly spends when that is the average price of a new car.
She booked vacations.

????

The op and her guy need to stop scrutinizing her. Not buying a house to house everyone permanently is not a dumb move. Buying a smaller one for herself when her kids are almost grown makes sense.

[TwattyvonTwatofTwatsville]

BengalGal - well she ran up CC debts of 25K in three years in clothes shops and a very expensive holiday whilst in the middle of divorce proceedings (her legal bills were met through the sale of the FMH so the CC debts were not because of this. )

The judge criticised her spending in her summing up.

Maybe a 20K car and more holidays abroad and £1500 a month in rent is not extravagant to you, but when you already own a car outright but buy something 'better', and you have the option of buying a mortgage free property and you don't, and when you have the chance to work and make your own money but you choose not to then I do think those sums are extravagant.

She had enough, JUST to buy a house outright for her and the kids. Without naming sums involved and the town she lives in and pointing you all in the direction of Rightmove she currently would be lucky to afford a 2 bed flat now. And her rent is reducing her capital all the time she refuses to get a job. The judge set her maintenance payments at a level where, with her working in a FT job, even if at minimum wage she would have over £3K net a month in a mortgage free property with no debts to her name. She still isn't working a year and half post divorce. So she will be drawing down on her capital every month.

We checked the ruling last night and unfortunately the judge did not impose a section 28 bar - meaning she CAN come back and ask for an extension and or increase to the payments if she blows the money and has no way of supporting herself.

So this does have the potential to affect us and our future.

Can anyone legal advise please? Does this mean that DP DOESN'T have a 'clean break' order? There was no mention of clean break in her ruling.

[heidiwine]

Please OP don't rely on the legal advice you'll get from a forum of people who all have their own reasons for being interested in this thread.
I'm on your side. I think some posters have been pretty vile and that, if the roles were reversed and it was an ex husband frittering away cash to the detriment of his children, there would be all round outrage by the very same posters who've given you a hard time.
That said I cannot give you legal advice - I can tell you about my situation which is similar to yours but it's not the same.
If you want legal advice go and see a lawyer. You can try posting in legal on here but I reckon you'll get the same advice.
And, from one second 'wife' to another - find a way to accept the outcome - you would do things differently but (sorry for the cliches) you can't change the past and you can't change the behaviour/attitude of anyone other than yourself.

[bengalcat]

As a number of posters have said here advise him to see a solicitor again as 'she can and almost certainly will come back ' . As you I would also seek independent legal advice myself . Not sure if you said you are married to him or not but at the simplest level what's yours is his and vice versa so if you brought and bring assets to the marriage which you and he can live comfortably off then a larger proportion of his income can and may be used to support her if she seeks this in the future .

[TwattyvonTwatofTwatsville]

We're not married yet. He is moving in in January and we are getting married next year.

I agree I need to protect my own assets and he has agreed to sign a Declaration of Trust before he moves in to say he has no claim on my house. However, I believe that this holds less legal 'weight' once you are actually married to someone.

It really isn't so straightforward second time around.

[kateandme]

ok so maybe she should be more sensible with money and maybe its her choice to spend as she pleases even if this is true but of course you have a right to be worried.becasue she then will come back I presume for money from your OH and he still has to support his children with maintenance or her etc etc.
so OP id be worried too.how she spends has effect on her and the rolls into your stepkids and then you.
I would go back and see someone in legal.see what you can do.tell them the whole sotry of how you have both being very reasonable in covering certain acceptable costs but now are concerned because of her spending it will become an issue again.see what they say.im sure there are som free advice lines somewhere or if you already have a solicitor.or even through ss etc they often no what parents needs or might have to pay.
try to keep calm.your doing it sounds,everything right your end,so just proceed in steps as calmly as you can to get this sorted.

[C8H10N4O2]

The OP has at no point passed judgement on what the exw was given

The opening article implied to me that the exW had take the lion's share of the marital assets because of 'her' debts and was frittering them away on accommodation and transport which the OP and her DP deemed too expensive for her, that the judge was on her DP's side. Subsequently it turned out that it was a 60/40 split - not over generous if she is the resident parent and paid her own legal fees. That came across as pretty judgemental to me.

If I was your DH id be pissed off that the kids won't inherit anything from her

I hear this where one spouse retains the home and the other retains the pension. Why should the spouse with the house preserve it carefully for the children when the spouse with the pension will by definition spending their share and not passing it on? It always strikes me as an odd attitude that the kids inheritance should come so much from one side. Similarly if its ok for DH to complain about ExW expenditure shouldn't she have a say in how he invests his pension moneys?

OP you are wise to protect your own interests and having watched many breakups over the years I would not rush into marriage without your own assets protected.

[Collaborate]

Not read the whole thread as it's far too long, but OP if I were you I'd simply wait the 3 years. She has to apply to extend the duration of the maintenance order before it expires.

He could write to her pointing out that her housing needs will not be met as she is deliberately and unreasonably wasting capital on rent. It is in theory possible that she might come back to court and ask for an extension of maintenance, but I suspect she's very unlikely to get it.

[TwattyvonTwatofTwatsville]

"Subsequently it turned out that it was a 60/40 split - not over generous if she is the resident parent and paid her own legal fees. "

Her legal fees and her CC debt were met from the sale of the FMH. After those were paid off and selling costs of the FMH paid her share was just over 60% of the joint 'pot'.

I have said before I don't have any issue whatsoever with what she awarded and why. I do have an issue that she is not buying a house which is what the Judge intended, and spending at a rate she cannot sustain.

And yes, he retained his pension, but a pension is not the same as cash or a house as it is not immediately available to him. And may never be if he was to die before 65.

"Similarly if its ok for DH to complain about ExW expenditure shouldn't she have a say in how he invests his pension moneys?"

It isn't the same though. If she spends her money and can't support herself she can go back to Court and ask for more, or for a longer term of maintenance. DP cannot go back to Court and ask for some of her money if his pension fund collapses, or he chooses to burn through it once he has reached 65.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 .

[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.

[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.