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.

[LadyLapsang]

I remembered the same case BabyBarrister has flagged. It was widely reported in the press:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/court-orders-man-increase-payments-wife-lost-bulk-divorce-settlement/

[HeavenlyEyes]

Why are you worried though - concerned the kids will be homeless, angry she is spending money you don't think she entitled to or fed up your DH came away without a house?

[TheFormidableMrsC]

BabyBarrister having battled through the divorce courts myself and seen many others go through it, I would say that a 100% award to what I would assume is a reasonably "young" ex spouse with mid-teen children, with a life time award of spousal (if that is indeed the case) means that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye?

[PigletWasPoohsFriend]

And for all you know, her currently loss-making business may turn the corner and make a profit and make her very well off.

On that case it is also her DH business as he should vary the court order to stop spousal maintenance.

Is it possible that the 'ex' would have a very different take on things?

Well if you actually read the Ops posts you would see that she has read the transcripts.

[PigletWasPoohsFriend]

@TheFormidableMrsC read the Ops posts it isn't a lifetime award. It's until the youngest is 18.

People live to jumpy to conclusions it seems.

[PigletWasPoohsFriend]

• love to jump.

[TheFormidableMrsC]

OP, what holidays she had that her ex-husband paid for is of no concern here, that comment makes you sound jealous. Surely he wouldn't have just laid out 7K if he wasn't happy to do so? I also suspect the fact she has worked has some impact here. He has supported her in doing so, she has supported him in running the home and bringing up the children, foregoing a career of her own. That was their choice in their marraige. That speaks quite a lot about why the settlement is like it is. How old is she and what reasonable prospect has she got of obtaining employment at a rate that gives her a reasonable lifestyle?

[TheFormidableMrsC]

Piglet if you read upthread, I did say that I wasn't sure that that was the case as it hadn't been mentioned. I am not jumping to conclusions at all. I asked BabyBarrister if in her opinion (and for the sake of assumption given everybody is jumping on the spousal) that the award given was not commonly seen and therefore there may be more to it. That was all.

[Jeepy]

Sounds like she needs to learn to use a calculator.

I can completely understand your frustration that children should have a roof over their head as that was what the money was given for.

Back to court?

[TwattyvonTwatofTwatsville]

Concerned around the kids not having security, and that she will blow the money, never get off her arse to get a job and then go back to Court to ask for more and get it.

I honestly don't care about the money in terms of what DP has / doesn't have from the divorce. The ex wife SHOULD have had that money but she should have bought a house for her and their children. It was what the judge intended. She couldn't have been clearer. The ex was a SAHM and DP is a high earner and can start again much more easily. It is right that she should come out of the marriage with some security in the form of a mortgage free house. But that possibility is dwindling with every holiday she books.

I own my own house that we plan on living in together and we both work hard for what we have. We are excited about our future.

But honestly, yes, I would be pissed if he has to bail her out again in future due to her own stupidity. Of course I would. It's my future and my children's too. (I have three of my own).

[C8H10N4O2]

He paid
You mean bills were paid from the household income as they should be. Its not just his money but you suggest he thought it was.

Judges giving orders 'reluctantly' and 'rubbishing' one side? That may be your slant on it, hers may be different.

A relative-by-marriage of mine talks in exactly these terms about his ex wife. "she" didn't work, "she" ran up debts, "she" was a greedy feckless gold digger wanting a meal ticket for life. He was charming enough that people believed him.

What he never told people was that he made her give up her successful, but not megabucks, career because he didn't want people thinking he couldn't support his family, her place was at home etc. She had debts run up trying to maintain the corporate lifestyle he expected when he wasn't transferring enough money to meet those expectations. She finally got it together to divorce him when the latest OW mocked her for being a doormat and she realised her children were learning from his behaviour (and her acceptance of it). He was in financially and emotionally abusive.

Anyone outside the relationship would say she had a fantastic life, she was lucky etc.

I've no idea what the reality is in your DH/DHexW case is, nor do any of us. But I've learned to reserve judgement about 'awful' exWives, especially when the complainant is so perjorative in their descriptions.

And no, I'm not an exW.

[TwattyvonTwatofTwatsville]

No, you have misunderstood.

She put the 7k holiday on her credit card whilst they were in the middle of divorce proceedings. I was using it to illustrate her spending / CC debt.

[crimsonlake]

I agree there is more to this... The other person is repeating words out of the judges mouth when she would not have been there during the court proceedings, so she is repeating the version of what her partner told her the judge said in court. Court orders are clear and to the point and no doubt somewhere on the order it will state that neither party can come back at a later date and make a future claim against the other, or it will state that both parties will be at liberty to do so. Were both or one of the parties legally represented? Did the ex wife give up her career to be a satm and support her ex in furthering her career and how old is the ex wife? If so she may have been awarded the equity as compensation of loss of career and future pension.
I have self represented myself for over 7 years in long drawn out legal battles with my ex who also spent all our assets prior to divorce and left me with nothing in my mid fifties. I gave up my career to be a satm whilst he became a high earner. I received spousal maintenance for life, the equity in the fmh which as it turns out was not a great deal . It is not easy to resurrect a career you gave up 20 years ago and I now mainly do office work. I was dragged back to court a 3 further times to have the sm varied. Eventually earlier this year the judge ordered a capitalisation of the sm which effectively is a clean break. As already said there is more to this story.

[PoorYorick]

You've got a right to be concerned because it affects your stepchildren and your own future. I don't agree with the comments saying you should have no opinion on the matter.

But I don't see what you can actually do about it; you're not even married at this point. Plus I agree with TheFormidableMrsC that a settlement like this is very unusual and we'd really need to know the full judgment to understand what's going on.

On a side point, I cannot understand why anyone would ever rent if they had a chance to buy outright (well, I can think of a few exceptions but you know what I mean). It's flushing money away when you could be investing it. It's such a loony way of thinking, I don't know what goes on in the minds of people who do it.

[thatdearoctopus]

You only have yourself to blame.

Yeah, nice one, Lavenderbees. Feel proud of yourself for that unpleasant jibe, do you?

[PoorYorick]

And yes, I am put off by your listing everything that "he paid" for. She was a SAHM, presumably by mutual agreement; household expenses were his responsibility. I doubt he'd be such a high earner if he'd had to do half the childcare.

[LadyLapsang]

I would think if you had never worked during your marriage and spent 7K on your holidays it would be because that was what you were used to. Also, it's pretty rare for a wife not to work at all while married if her DH wishes otherwise. Usually it has been agreed between the couple and often these very same husbands have not be available to do equal childcare and domestic work so the arrangement has suited them well during the marriage. Presumably your DP's ex would have applied for pension sharing had your DP not have given her the proceeds from the house sale. Depending on how far away you are from retirement and his pension pot, that could have worked out more.

[Starlight2345]

Op..

I think 2 things..You do need to protect your assets in this case from Ex and for your children.

I would also suggest your DH would get legal advice.. Yes she has lost the chance of a career raising the children..so EX's earning potential is lower, however She and children would have far more security if she bought a house.

So yes I do see why you are both concerned.

[Fudgefase]

I don't agree - it's his children that are being involved as well. Make sure the kids know, when the sh*t hits the fan, they are welcome to stay with you, where they'll at least have a roof over their heads.

[TheFormidableMrsC]

OP, also, I presume that your DP stated that his housing needs were to be met by you. I would be protecting your own position to be honest.

[SusanTheGentle]

@TheFormidableMrsC but your situation is not what the OP is describing - and if the husband did run up the debts then that's different, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

And to the PP who called me out for being appalled - I'm not appalled at the ex's behaviour per se, though it doesn't sound great - I'm appalled at all the people who had a go at the OP saying it isn't her business when it clearly is affecting the lives of people she cares for.

She's not going after the ex with a pitchfork - she's just worried and wanting other perspectives.

[CamperVamp]

It's a poor do if she was awarded the whole value of the house in order to house the kids, and then spends the money and can't house the kids.

She and the OP's DP bought a house together, which you would think would be passed to the kids. He has nothing of it left to pass on to the kids.

Pity the court couldn't have gone further and insisted that the money be used to house the kids for longer than the term of a short rental. Maybe put the money in trust for the kids and have the trust buy the house for the kids.

And how wrong if the Dad does end up housing them anyway, with no share of the house left to do so.

[SusanTheGentle]

I presume that your DP stated that his housing needs were to be met by you.

Very good point Mrs.

[smallmercys]

Twatty the court will decide what the ExW is due, not you, and you cannot compete for that money, it is spoken for.

I have been on both sides of this situation, this stuff comes with the territory. StbExW is entitled to make her own financial decisions, and I am sure you are on the receiving end of DP's frustration with it.

For your own sanity I would recommend that you step back from getting involved in his divorce - you are not married to DP and your finances are only joint with his as a partnership.

If you don't like being exposed financially in this way you should keep all your finances separate until a settlement has been reached, and disengage in the longer term or it will turn you into a hater.

[JaniceBattersby]

So out of their joint assets, she got the house equity and maintenance? He got his pension?

Fine, tell her how to spend her money now, as long as you're prepared for her to have a say how your husband spends his pension in retirement.