Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Divorce/separation

Here you'll find divorce help and support from other Mners. For legal advice, you may find Advice Now guides useful.

Original poster

STBX is engaged!

66 replies

BrainSurgeon · 27/11/2018 22:34

That’s it really.

We are divorcing - petition submitted mid Oct - but don’t have a decree yet. Separated in January this year.

I know that he proposed to his girlfriend of six months - diamond ring, cost estimates for big wedding in May 2019....

Is it me or is this not on?!?

OP posts:
PrettyLovely · 27/11/2018 22:51

He certainly moves on quick Blush

lovealab · 27/11/2018 23:11

He’s a fast mover! Will the decree absolute be in time for a May wedding? Shock

Original poster
BrainSurgeon · 27/11/2018 23:14

I hope so because I can't wait to get it over and done with...

But I still can't shake the feeling that something is not right.

He says that she is the one who wants to get married... but he's such a liar I don't know what to believe anymore.

OP posts:
MissedTheBoatAgain · 28/11/2018 01:31

But I still can't shake the feeling that something is not right

Once the Decree Absolute has been issued you are both entitled to marry again.

He says that she is the one who wants to get married... but he's such a liar I don't know what to believe anymore

If you divorcing what difference does it make?

prawnsword · 28/11/2018 02:33

Is he trying to hide assets ?

Monty27 · 28/11/2018 02:37

She will wake up and smell the coffee one day. At least he's out of your life.
😊

MissedTheBoatAgain · 28/11/2018 02:41

Is he trying to hide assets ?

Think I would argue that any money spent so far on rings, advance payments for second wedding should form part of STBX share of assets when settlement is made. Seems a bit off that the marital assets can be depleted for a second marriage before the existing marriage has been brought to an end, settlement made and DA issued?

Notbeingrobbed · 28/11/2018 03:02

He must need his head examining. Marry again??? Is he delusional? Make sure you don’t end up paying for the ring!

MissedTheBoatAgain · 28/11/2018 03:16

Oh dear someone has set off NotBeingRobbed again. Hahaha.

However, having gone through a Divorce myself I can't see me marrying again.

Notbeingrobbed · 28/11/2018 06:16

@MissedTheBoatAgain I’m glad you find it funny. I’m going to have to change my name to AmBeingRobbed as that’s what’s happening to me.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 28/11/2018 06:25

To NotBeingRobbed and soon to be AmBeingRobbed

No point in bleating about it. My ex received 70% of equity in house she did not pay a penny towards plus proceeds from sale of a vehicle.

However, my superior earning will soon allow me to catch up. Based on the numbers you gave before I think you will be better off than ex in the long term?

Notbeingrobbed · 28/11/2018 06:34

He wants 75% and has already taken a vehicle! I have learned my lesson. I wonder why you continue to post @MissedTheBoatAgain? What’s your agenda? You seem to think people must just accept this hideous system and then go away meekly while you continue to dominate the board.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 28/11/2018 06:58

I have no Agenda, but can say with certainty that any assets accrued during the marriage will be considered as Jointly owned regardless of who paid for them.

In the event of a Divorce either the two Parties agree amicably, which to be formalized in a Consent Order would still need approval from the Family Court, or argue in the Courts and incur the associated costs and stress.

Courts will decide what they consider to be a fair split of Joint Asset taking into account a wide range of factors such as; length of marriage, age of children if any, earning capacity, pensions and so on.

Generalizations are always dangerous, but seems to the the case the partner that has the lower earning capacity receives a larger share of assets.

That your partner wants 75% does not mean he will receive that amount. Settlements are based on needs and what assets are available.

However, in many "average divorces" if there is such a thing it is often the case there is insufficient assets to enable both partners to move on and have the same lifestyle as before as though nothing had happened. In that case both will have to accept adjustment (downwards) to their lifestyle.

Good luck.

Mumteedum · 28/11/2018 07:01

I agree with missedtheboat, that spending on diamond rings before assets are split is not on and you should have that taken out of his share.

What woman in her right mind would get engaged to a married man before the divorce? Hell I would even date one!

@missedtheboat whilst you're entitled to your pov re notbeingrobbed's situation, do you have to refer to her 'bleating on'? I find that deeply unpleasant and misogynistic language. Men are never accused of bleating. It's used to make women shut up.

Notbeingrobbed · 28/11/2018 07:18

Thank you @Mumteedum. It’s complete crap though, isn’t it. I can see why the law favours a SAHM - although I’ve never had the luxury of being supported like that. I can’t see why the law would favour a working father who has not made any career sacrifices, in fact has benefitted from an enchanced standard of living for years because of me subsidising him. He is now burning through cash and on a sure route to bankruptcy and wants my very hard earned money to help him on his way. This is beyond leeching.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 28/11/2018 07:18

NotBeingRobbed is in the unusual situation of being the higher earner during the marriage, but looks like the one who will take over childcare. One of the Children is over 18 and the courts will dismiss as being adult as opposed to dependent child.

If she can earn more than double what ex earned by working part time then as the second child passes 18 maybe she can work full time? Then her earnings will be way in excess of Ex's which will help to compensate for what she perceives as an inevitable asset split which to be fair has not yet happened.

Her main gripe appears to be:

"I paid the most so why don't i get the largest share of assets?"

Many Ex husbands have been saying that for decades. At present Law works on the basis that assets accrued during marriage are Jointly Owned. There is no distinction based on who paid for what. Until, if ever, that is changed then both partners will have to accept.

What woman in her right mind would get engaged to a married man before the divorce? Hell I would even date one

Very strange I agree.

Notbeingrobbed · 28/11/2018 07:22

This is MUMSNET btw. Of course, let’s not discriminate here - if a man wants to spend his days haunting these boards and trolling women then let us not think there is anything twisted about that. But I wonder why @MissedTheBoatAgain would want to do that? Why not push off to a men’s forum?

Notbeingrobbed · 28/11/2018 07:24

I think we can conclude that the fiancée in the unfortunate OP’s case is a parasite. There are lots about.

tenredthings · 28/11/2018 07:26

Is it possible she's pregnant ?

Notbeingrobbed · 28/11/2018 07:30

Why would anyone bother about getting married when pregnant these days? If you don’t want to be pregnant outside wedlock then don’t shag outside wedlock!

MissedTheBoatAgain · 28/11/2018 07:37

He is now burning through cash and on a sure route to bankruptcy and wants my very hard earned money to help him on his way

Seem to remember one of the Legal People saying that if one of the partner had been reckless with money or ran up large debts it could be taken into account when deciding how to split assets?

Maybe you can post again on Legal Board?

shesabloodywitch · 28/11/2018 08:30

I'm in the same position as Notbeingrobbed although not divorcing and I would split the assets 50/50 - just because I earn a large wage and he earns nothing doesn't mean he hasn't contributed to the marriage (and I would definitely be taking over the childcare too if much younger children). On the topic of OPs post - he is a fool - sounds like he's jumping in quick because he doesn't want to be alone. It will all end in tears and OP will be free from the twat

Enigmam · 28/11/2018 09:18

Well going by the backlogs that's currently going on at the Divorce Centres a May wedding might be a bit ambitious.

TweetieFruFru · 28/11/2018 10:21

It’s your revenge on him really OP. He is the idiot getting locked into marriage again.

RightOcciputAnterior · 28/11/2018 13:35

@notbeingrobbed Why assume the fiancee is a parasite? Am I missing something?!