Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Refused Divorce WTF

224 replies

DroningOn · 25/07/2018 10:52

Tini Owens loses Supreme Court divorce fight - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-44949856

Don't understand how a husband could hold his wife to an unhappy marriage when she wants a divorce so much she's willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Is it a divorce settlement issue or something?

OP posts:
SomeonesRealName · 25/07/2018 13:50

headinhands what if there was data that showed such a trend - I can imagine their might be because being separated but not divorced might become the new normal for many people. But if there was, would it make the case for you for forcing people in ‘no fault’ situations to stay married for five years?

VanGoghsDog · 25/07/2018 13:51

"By the time it got to the Supreme Court, Mrs Owen would have been making a very different argument with different risks attached and she would have had counsel and probably different solicitors by then."

She could well have had different solicitors, but she could not be making different arguments. Appeals are based on a matter of law, new evidence which was not available at the time of the first hearing or on the sanction being too harsh. You don't get to just give another reason or change your case, it's not a full rerun.

SomeonesRealName · 25/07/2018 13:56

You’re right that it was an argument on the same point I.e. that she was entitled to a divorce on the basis of unreasonable behaviour- but my understanding is that at first instance the dispute was over whether her examples were bona fide unreasonable, whereas at the Supreme Court the dispute was around the interpretation of unreasonable and whether it could be construed differently.

LeahJack that’s a very good point I’ll have to think about that. I’m not keen on someone being held hostage to disadvantage them in negotiations but I can see both sides

ShumpaLumpa · 25/07/2018 13:57

@ConciseandNice

Hysterically he freaked out and ran away from them, leaping over desks until he fell over a chair onto his face. The court thought he was the stupidest CF they’d had in a long time.

Oh wow tell us more!!

BlueBug45 · 25/07/2018 13:57

@LeahJack Ant McPartlin's wife isn't refusing to divorce him completely like Mr Owen's is.

She is delaying it until a financial settlement is agreed upon that she is happy with. She is not unreasonable in doing so, and in fact you are encouraged to sort out a financial settlement before the divorce is finalised to avoid ending up like the Ecotricity founder.

Shortstuff08 · 25/07/2018 13:58

It has been fairly standard up to now for people to be advised to put something quite mild in the petition rather than going for warts and all, on the basis that it will be less likely to be contested and it will be less acrimonious

So you are saying that legal teams are advising people to fill their applications with bull shit?

That maybe fine. However this woman filed using reasons that could clearly be seen through. But why should other person just accept it, especially if it's all bull shit?

Mn is full of women wanting to divorce on ground of adultery, even when they have no proof and are advised not to. They want this because they want what happened recorded accurately.

Maybe this man feels strongly, it should have been recorded accurately and was not willing to go along with lies?

But again, if she was advised correctly (including the risk), knew she was putting bull shit and proceeded with exaggerated and flimsy reasons, then she needs to accept that the risk didn't pay off. Or the legal team didn't advise her of the risk.

No fault divorce should be available, but it's not. I am pretty sure, if he is such a twat, that she had some decent But less acrimonious reasoning.

How many people here would be ok with their spouse cheating, then trying to divorce them by lying on the papers?

SomeonesRealName · 25/07/2018 13:58

VanGoghsDog I’m not a divorce lawyer so I’m happy to be wrong - I’m just trying to understand it all.

VanGoghsDog · 25/07/2018 13:58

@LeahJack

Quite, my sister is currently going through this. Her stbxh cheated and left her 2.5 years ago, admitting 10 years of affairs. There is no money, so for her, it's better to stay married as long as she can as that way she is still entitled to and has access to everything he earns (he's a high earner but there are no assets) and life cover if he dies. Plus some assets may appear and it would be easier to deal with them in a divorce if they existed than trying to get wording to set them aside for her post divorce if they do appear.

His new gf is pushing for the divorce because she doesn't like being called his 'mistress' (oh dear, what a shame, never mind!) but my sister is resisting it, totally understandably. Ex has cited unreasonable behaviour but has not particularised the claims as he says he wants them to agree and be cooperative. Funny how he didn't feel like that when he was shagging other women.

BlueBug45 · 25/07/2018 13:59

@PuntCuffin nope. 2 years separation can be contested. She has to wait 5 years then he can't contest it.

poobumwee · 25/07/2018 14:00

So, what happens if the husband dies in the next 2 years? Will everything go to the wife, as they are still married?

VanGoghsDog · 25/07/2018 14:00

@SomeonesRealName

"at first instance the dispute was over whether her examples were bona fide unreasonable, whereas at the Supreme Court the dispute was around the interpretation of unreasonable and whether it could be construed differently."

  • yes, that's right, the higher courts were debating the matter of law, not the facts.
SomeonesRealName · 25/07/2018 14:01

It’s not bull shit to give a mild account of events. It’s still true.

HuckfromScandal · 25/07/2018 14:01

It’s just bloody awful.
The law needs to change

VanGoghsDog · 25/07/2018 14:02

@poobumwee

He doesn't have to leave his own assets to her in his will, but joint assets automatically revert to her, yes. After this time I expect they have separated their finances to some extent. And if he left her short she could contest the will on the grounds she had expected £x as a divorce settlement.

PuntCuffin · 25/07/2018 14:02

Er @Bluebug45. That was exactly my point. Two years should be enough for contest to be disallowed. Five years is just silly.

SomeonesRealName · 25/07/2018 14:04

A friend’s ex divorced her for unreasonable behaviour citing things like how long it took her to pack up the car when they went on a family trip. She didn’t contest it though as she was only too glad to be rid of him!

Stirner · 25/07/2018 14:04

I bet most of you screeching about the unfairness of this wouldn't support on demand divorces for men.

BlueBug45 · 25/07/2018 14:04

@Shortstuff08 lawyers advise you to put mild examples of unreasonable behaviour down as if you don't the divorce is more likely to be contested as the other spouse will get hostile, and so the divorce petition won't be granted.

OrangeMarshmellows · 25/07/2018 14:05

The judge actually said something along the lines of 'she is more sensitive than most wives' !!
Surely we are our own judges of what we deem personally unreasonable behaviour from a spouse. It is most definitely subjective.

BlueBug45 · 25/07/2018 14:06

@PuntCuffin and judges and divorce lawyers agree.

@Stimer it would also allow on-demand divorces from women. However as I pointed out in a previous post if there are financial assets involved divorces can be reasonably delayed until an agreement is sorted out on them.

OrangeMarshmellows · 25/07/2018 14:08

@stirner
It's not on demand though is it, they have been separated for over 2 years and she does not want to be his wife. I think you still need to have stipulations re sorting out finances, children etc. But it is entirely archaic to force someone to remain married against their will, man or woman.

OctaviaOctober · 25/07/2018 14:08

I bet most of you screeching about the unfairness of this wouldn't support on demand divorces for men.

Piss off back to your mens rights forum.

SomeonesRealName · 25/07/2018 14:12

Piss off back to your mens rights forum.

Hear hear!

LeahJack · 25/07/2018 14:13

She is delaying it until a financial settlement is agreed upon that she is happy with.

You’re missing the point entirely.

People on here are saying “Oh this is awful and why can’t people have no fault divorce on demand”.

But that wouldn’t just affect people like this man, it would also take that bargaining chip away from people like Lisa and like VanGogh’s sister.

The law isn’t emotional and depend on judging who is nice and deserving and who is nasty and undeserving. It works on the law. So if you withdraw the law for this man, you also withdraw the law for hundreds of thousands of women who use it to get a deal out of unpleasant or cheating or abusive husbands too.

It’s one of those things where people see a headline and have a knee jerk response rather than thinking through the wider implications.

I can guarantee that if quick, no fault divorce on demand was granted within months this place would be flooded with women who had to accept derisory offers and were left high and dry and skint by horrible cheating husband’s who disappeared off into the sunset with new women and most of their cash intact.

It really is an important bargaining tool for lower earners and that is usually women. Take away this rule and a lot of women would be sold up the river.

Stirner · 25/07/2018 14:13

@OctaviaOctober - I'm just pointing out an obvious double standard. You don't get to police what I say.