To think I owe no loyalty to someone who has dumped wife of 28 years and 4 kids to move in with strumpet

[tinkerbellhadpiles]

Friend of DH, married forever to a lovely woman, who has raised four kids - youngest 15. Suddenly gets to a big birthday and decides that he's been unhappy 'for ever' and the solution is to divorce her, without warning or discussion, just moves out and then three months later, having offered her a derisory divorce settlement, tells me he's moving in with his new girlfriend.

AND HE EXPECTS ME NOT TO TELL HIS WIFE because they haven't come to terms on the divorce. He's sold their second home to buy a new house for his new gf and thinks his wife should not be told as 'it's immaterial to the divorce'.

What would you do? I'm tempted to phone HER solicitor but not tell her. But that's probably being a wuss!

Tell!! He's vile. It's half her house he's giving to someone else. Tosser.
Go DC!

I wouldn't worry about being sued but I just meant if someone tells something in confidence and then that person breaks the confidentiality then you can indeed be sued for breaking that confidence but it's more likely to be where you're the nanny of the beckhams and have signed a secrecy contract or the document was stamped confidential than if he says - this is confidential although technically even if he imposed the confidentiality orally that might still stick. Anyway he probably didn't swear you to secrecy over it. If he had and the result of you breaking the agreement to keep something secret was that he had to pay his wife 50% of say £200,000 then he might technically be able to claim the £100,000 loss from you - that was all I was getting at.

absolutely one hundred per cent wrong in this case xenia.

Haha, that?s really interesting, though I can't imagine any judge supporting it - he is trying to defraud his wife, surely that will have precedence? That's how it's possible to have whistleblowers, isn?t it?

But yes, what a b'stard!

What I don't understand is why he told you. If he's trying to be underhand, he's rather leaving himself open if he tells all and sundry but not his wife. Seems very odd to me.

But Xenia, even if he would get that £200,000 fraudulently? I have no legal background but if that's true, where's the justice?

I don;t think you need to worry about this - unless you think she's going to agree to some sort of financial settlement without involving lawyers. he might be able to temporarily hide the property sale from her but he can't hide it from the courts. also the fact that various properties are in his name rather than joint wouldn't be relevant to a final settlement - I would tell her that he can't be trusted to be fair and upfront, tell her she ought to get the best solicitor she can and ensure that the divorce settlement grants her every penny she owns. this is not about taking him to the cleaners etc. it's about her securing what's hers - drum that into her. if she's not listening to the principle that she has to get a good lawyer then yes, I would tell her = to spur her on and let her know what she's dealing with.

Must be said that I feel I'm missing something about why tinkerbell feels she should even consider not reporting this guy. Yes one owes a duty to one's friends in times of difficulty, but that does not extend to being an accomplice in fraud to the scale of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Although the court may require him to give a list of his assets, he may think that as it "belongs" to his girlfriend, he doesn't have to list it.
I'm not an expert in this, but I am far from convinced that they have the resources to track down every person who lies in this way.

Xenia has a point in the general case, but it is a deep and important part of any legal system that you cannot have a contract or obligation which over rides your adherence to the criminal law.
If in her example, the Beckham's nanny discovered that the Beckhams were investing their wealth in the drug trade, they could not sue her when she reported it.

There is an ancient term in English law that "he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands". There is a specific case taught to most law students of one businessmen suing another for their fair share of the profits.
One was hung, the other transported to Australia.
Turns out they were highwaymen, (yes really), and this came out in court...

All the evidence points to this bloke being a thief. I'm not taking any moral position on the treatment of his wife, but hiding assets and lying about it is theft.
200K is 4 or 5 times as much as you can hope to make from taking a sawn off shotgun to make a withdrawal with extreme prejudice from a bank.
He's a criminal, hew wants you to be an accomplice.
Not only would I tell the solicitor, but that person would not be my friend, and yes I would be telling him so to his face with sufficient emphasis that he would not be happy at all.

DC - good points - I would hope that any divorce court would uncover this kind of attempted fraud though. I may be wrong but I don;t think it's as simple as providing a list of assets as of a particular date. I don;t know this for sure but I strongly suspect that serious recent transactions - like the sale of a house - would also have to be declared. and any solicitor acting for tinkerbell's friend is going to ask her for a list of all properties - if one of them has vanished the court is going to want to know what happened to it, and to the assets. I think the important point is that this woman needs a good solicitor. and your point about contracts and confidentiality is, of course, right.

Tell!

I would tell her. He sounds like a bit of sh*t tbh I feel sorry for his new partner.

How come the second home was only in his name?

I don't feel sorry for his new partner.

You reap what you sow.

I didn't say it was a very good point but just to be cautious. I am not sure it is the same as if someone told you in confidence and perhaps after you signed a secrecy agreement that they were laundering drug money. There was an interesting problem for lawyers - almost 80% of cases involving self employed people apparently show they earn more than they declare to the tax man. Family lawyers were being told they'd be struck off if they didn't shop their own client or his or her other half. Interesting conflict.

Whistleblower legislation protects employees from unfair dismissal only.

I think you';re right. If someone said I'll tell you a secret - this is where the drug money is hidden or the kidnapped child is and then you disclose that I doubt you could be sued. I think priests in confessionals don't have a duty to disclose (but I might be wrong) but doctors do if you admit burning or beating your child etc. to the doctor.

It is not against the law to sell a property or mislead a wife so it's not quite similar to some of the examples on the thread. It is against the law to lie under oath so if he were asked in court to disclose his assets and didn't he would be fine. I am afraid that thousands of men all over the country every week hide and sell assets and in a lot of cases the money can't be traced, things can't be proved and the wife doesn't get the money however unjust that seems.

I wonder if this cuts both ways ?
Imagine that the mother had just inherited her parents house, with her able to realise £200 K when it sold.
She plans not to tell anyone about it...

Would those who say that the husband should be reported, say the same thing if it was the other way round ?

yes if it was the othre way round I'd essentially say the same thing - there's not point in trying to conceal it cos if the settlement's going to go through the courts it'll come out in the end anyway

Yes, the law is the law.

Yes, I agree the other way round too and if it's inherited in marriage it's part of the marital assets. Actually plenty of women say the gift my parents made of £50k to buy our first home 20 years ago by the way was just a loan and here is the (fake) loan agreement to prove it when the divorce comes and the husband is going to get 50% of that etc

I have had far some dinners with divorcing men telling me gleefully how they're either hiding assets or income (as if that will somehow make me think they're clever and desirable).

It is wrong to say that if an inheritance is received in amrriage it is a matrimonial asset as that implies that the other party is entitiled to half of the inheritance which is not automatically the case.

If somebody, say, has been married 2 years and towards the end of that time one party inherits a lot of money it would be extremely unlikley that a court would simply divide that by two.

It is all decided on a case by case basis.

I don't know what law you do Xenia but I hope to god it's not family

Where are these "plenty" of women - I've not come across one in ten years of practice. As a rule, family debts seem to be taken as "soft " debts and therefore the assumption is often that they do not have to be repaid.

If you can prove it was a debt then they might get it back but not otherwise. Mostly you need all the assets to house the children so whether it's from inheritance or not it will go in the pot. As you say it depends on all the circumstances but in general in most cases it's included I think.

You're not right Xenia.

Which bit isn't right? The fact in most divorces where there are children there is hardly any money so whatever the sourced you're usually giving that bit of the equity and often more than 50% to the non working woman with children is surely right? I'm interested. I am certainly not an expert.

Inheritances within marriage can be funny things. If, say, the wife inherits £200K from her parents, it may not just go into the communal pot as she may be able to argue that her soon-to-be ex is due to inherit far more from his own parents in the not too distant future.

If the money was inherited 10 years prior to the divorce, the situation might well be different.

"Immaterial to the divorce". I think her lawyer would have something to say about that.

Can he just sell their second home with a divorce pending? If it's in her name as well?

I'd tell her, I think. He can't hide a new girlfriend and a sold house for ever. I wouldn't have thought so anyway.

She has got a lawyer I hope.