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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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.)

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.