TAKEN TO THE CLEANERS

[notnotnee]

Hi
So I just wanted to warn people of marrying in haste.

I married a man after just 1 year who seemed to be the perfect man. Funny, charming, kind, generous, romantic, hard working etc. That all changed once I married him. He became the opposite of all the above.
After many rows and break ups (he was very good at persuading me to take him back) I finally filed for divorce. I just couldn't be around his miserable, angry, lazy arse any more!!

I owned my own home when I met him and I was mortgage free. It was soley in my name and he always said he would NEVER touch my house. He came with nothing and had a big gambling habit (which I was not aware of) For the 3.5 years we were married, he gave me £100 a week house keeping and played golf 2-3 days a week. He was a bricklayer and worked 2 days a week. Said he was not interested in money, time was more important to him.

I was a single parent for 13 years with no financial help from their father. Always worked and never had any help from anyone. Just worked hard and bought and sold properties over the years that I had renovated, thus enabling me to end up mortgage free at 47.

Guess what, he fought me through the courts for everything I had worked so hard for and he was awarded £73,000 and it cost me £15,000 in solicitors and barristers fees.

He basically saw me coming !!!

I am so angry and even bitter. He screwed me over big time.

Remember the vows you make "all that I have I give to you" That is how the courts see it. Does not matter that it is yours. Once you marry, it becomes ours.

BIGGEST MISTAKE OF MY LIFE

I'm trying to buy a little house this year and if I do I swear I will never get married.

I will never marry again

I don’t want anyone to be able to claim half of my house.......I’m hoping to leave that to my children

If it wasn't for the fact that my stbxh doesn't play golf, i'd think we'd married the same lazy **
I will never marry again but I totally get your anger. He's taken enough from you, don't let him rob your future through anger & bitterness - draw a line under that chapter & enjoy your new life

@Mug2018 “enjoy your new life”....with what? Would you say that to someone who had been mugged of a few quid? No. But taking thousands or hundreds of thousands is apparently OK and we mustn’t be bitter about it! Stop patronising the unjustly treated.

Be angry very angry it’s unfair nasty I’m waiting at the early stages and I am I think the higher earner ,.good pension I have 2 infact his a secret gambler does work I don’t know much about his pensions earnings nothing it’s a nightmare.
The house our special autistic child her future ..I can’t believe the things I have read about different experiences.He ignores the petition says he will not spend a dime on a lawyer,,things are hateful at the moment
OP be angry it’s unfair the time for healing isn’t going to be now.
It will come I don’t know how or when .but it will.I am so so so sorry

All they look at is how much is "in the pot". As in, assets. All I had was my house and he had nothing. They do not care who paid for it or how much each partner earned or spent etc. They just said he had to be housed and there is enough in the pot to do that.

I had to sell my forever home that I had renovated and made beautiful. It was horrendous.....
He was also abusive and violent so I ended up having to leave my own home while he remained in MY house.
I cannot tell you what an awful time it was.

The money I was left with was not enough to buy anything in Oxford (where I am from) so I had to move away from my family and friends to avoid being mortgaged up to the hill.

He went on to build a house (as he is a builder) with the money he got. So he now lives in my hometown but I cannot afford to.
BE WARNED !!!!

Well said Notbeingrobbed.

All they look at is how much is "in the pot". As in, assets. All I had was my house and he had nothing. They do not care who paid for it or how much each partner earned or spent etc. They just said he had to be housed and there is enough in the pot to do that

The Law applies equally to both genders. Assets accrued during marriage are considered Jointly owned. Who gets what during Divorce will be based on what is available and who needs what.

If there is sufficient in the pot for both partners to be housed then that is what will be ordered to happen.

Take an extreme example of Jocelyn Wildenstein (the cat woman). Married into a wealthy family of art dealers. Her Divorce settlement was US$2.5 Billion and US$100 Million per year for 13 years.

Was that a fair settlement taking into account she had not contributed to the family business? Most would say not.

missedTheBoatAgain.
These assets were not accrued during the marriage. Did you not read my posts. I owned the house before I met him and he only worked 2 days a week, preferring to play golf. And he gave me £100 pw for the 3.5 yrs we were together.
Its legalized theft. That is what it is.

It’s legalised theft

So why did you marry? I remember that one of the vows mentioned refers to richer or poorer.

To NBR

You seem to have been on MN for a while now? Has your Divorce not progressed at all?

Good luck to all those who are going through Divorce. Settle amicably if you can. If not you will be forced down the Court route and that could cost more than what is being argued about.

Not a lot of point whining about how the Law works as many men have being saying the same for decades as what the female posters are saying now on this thread.

Courts priority will be children's welfare. Weaker earners generally receive a larger share of assets, particularly if they have young children to look after, to reflect that the stronger earner can catch up over time.

Bit unusual that the higher earner is also the main carer of children. If so what was the other partner doing? Maybe these career women should have kicked their partners harder to contribute as well?

If someone stays in a marriage for over 20 years to a layabout freeloader more fool them for putting up with it for so long.

I dumped my Ex 6 years after wedding as obvious they were a freeloader. Never looked for a Job until I filed for Divorce.

@MissedTheBoatAgain you seem to have been on MN for a long time too. I wonder what your motivation is?

I am still trying to reach a settlement. If I cannot then court is next.

It’s not true that the law protects the children. It’s not protecting mine. My ex wants more than half having contributed much less. I have 100% care of the children and their costs to pay. One is at uni so my ex is not obliged to pay but I can assure you that studying doesn’t come free.

My ex will be able to live mortgage free but wants more. I will need a loan to buy him out. If I lose my job or become ill then my children and I could be out on the streets while this man lives off the savings I put by for a rainy day.

There are many reasons why we marry. “Romance”, tradition, the advice that this is stability and morally right. It’s the law that’s actually morally wrong and an offence to justice.

My own situation is taking a while because it’s impossible to reach an agreement. Each letter and stage of the negotiation costs more. Court is prohibitively expensive. There appears no other way out though.

The thought of being able to do normal things with a little bit of spare cash seems far, far away. New clothes, a holiday, a trip to the theatre, all these little luxuries of life are no longer possible.

Meanwhile my ex is living it up and rubbing his hands in glee at the thought that he will rake in even more money from me.

To NBR

Might have said this before, but courts have powers to award costs against obstructive partners and adjust settlements accordingly.

My ex learnt that the hard way. Could have been mortgage free and not dependent on myself to work had they not burned a fortune in fees. Ex and child have decent house to live in, but if I become unemployed and unable to pay maintenance she runs the risk of being unable to pay mortgage and being repossessed and losing everything.

My ex husband stripped everything from our rented home and tried to get my pension plus maintenance.

I literally had to rebuy everything. Now I have my own home and a pension worth a lot there is no way I will get married. I don’t believe for one instance he would do that but people do strange things when they are bitter from the break up and I see no reason to risk it.

Itsnotme123, I hope your posts 're thoughts pre wedding were jovial.

NBR, if you haven't been to court then so far it's not the law imposing a settlement. Although the law is vague and that's why there is so much disparity between cases.

I relate to how you feel as I was mortgage free pre marriage and Ex had zilch. Later his career took off whilst I was responsible for the children, although always worked just not at the level as before.He had 50% of assets but minimum CMS. Is it fair? No but it is because it depends on the judge on the day and how he feels. Ex also went for top barrister as could afford to do so.

The main care giver should be protected as that is best interests of the children. That principle seems to have been lost.

I know of a mum with 3 young children who is expected to work fulltime whilst her Ex earns enough to remain in the large family home and contribute a low % relative to his income. The mum is struggling to keep her small house. I think these awards will be source of controversy in years to come as the consequences become known. Women with children were always worse off post divorce but that has got much, much worse.

To LifeBegins50

Not sure what you mean by minimum CMS? Child maintenance is calculated on the paying parents income.

I am sure legal have already said that CMS is both the minimum that NRP has to pay and also the maximum that can be enforced?

Nothing to stop NRP paying more than CMS for extras such as; birthday present, Christmas presents, school trips and hobbies. I pay all of those as ex wife would not be able to afford.

In my marriage I was the only earner. So anything that wife received might be regarded as a free gift.

I am happy with settlement? Yes I am. I got to keep my overseas property as bought long before the marriage. Also kept the FMH as I was able to buy ex out. Ex kept property in her native country that I bought for her before marriage.

Child Maintenance is paid as per CMS. Spousal Maintenance paid till child reaches 14. My Barrister thought that was too generous and would have argued that spousal only paid till child was 12. I was not bothered as rental income from properties covers all maintenance easily.

Is wife happy with the settlement? No she is not. Main reason is that she wanted joint lives Spousal Maintenance as idiot judge at FDR made that recommendation. So ex marched on full steam ahead to the final hearing on the assumption that judge at final hearing was obliged to say same. What an expensive mistake that was.

The thing I don’t get is the fact that partners cannot be forced to take care of their kids and even more so that there is a fair financial contribution to the main carer if they don’t. Ex walked away from the kids completely and randomly has them 2 hours a week if I’m lucky but I will still have to pay for back up childcare just in case. He is fighting me in court for the house and has hidden all his assets and taken a lower waged job. He said he’d have them in the holidays but now only wants to do dats not nights.
What would be fair if the court allocated a set amount of nights and holidays that he would have to provide childcare and penalise very heavily if he didn’t that would make the kids lives much easier and mine too. The non main carer is getting a really easy ride in this system and it’s not fair.

It’s grossly unfair that the final settlement depends on the whim of a judge and that ruling is so unpredictable. I’d actually prefer a jury system as I think I’d do better that way.

My case has not been to court but what I am offering is based on what a court would find reasonable - and it is much more than I consider my stbexh deserves!

CMS money is a joke. It does not cover half the costs of housing, feeding and providing for my DD. DS of course gets zilch. Never mind, at least they have one parent who cares about them.

Stbexh also wants to stop paying CMS money which is a legal obligation. So kind.

To NBR

Both my Barrister and Solicitor advised that ruling at final hearing depends on what judge is present. Only thing they said was a certainty was that the joint lives Spousal Maintenance would be rejected.

Can’t see jury’s becoming part of the settlement process. That is more related to criminal cases than civil.

That you think you would do better is a pure guess. If more men in jury they might think

“Here we go again. Another sympathy seeker”

And vote against you.

If more women in jury they might think

“I got a bad deal in my divorce. So I am damn certain she will too”

Good luck

To Emrel.

CMS will take into account the number of nights children spend with your ex when calculating the maintenance he has to pay.

Whether or not your ex can be ordered to take care is a question for legal. Maybe you need to post on the legal board?

Not all people of one gender think the same. What a ridiculous idea. I am not a “sympathy seeker”. I am being ripped off! I’ve offered what this twisted system would see as correct and that has been rejected.

A just system would look at the whole picture, not deem each partner earner half when clearly they did not!

Wow.
These stories!
I've been engaged 4 years, together with dp 7yrs. We have spent the 'wedding' money on other things (mostly travel) and now we are saving for baby and house, the wedding can wait. We are not into the whole wedding thing and we aren't really sure we buy Into the whole marriage thing either..
lately we (ok it started me, me being the practical one ) began questioning what would happen financially when we Marry.
We have no children at present but have just started ttc for the first time.
We are currently renting and saving for a house.
We both have well paid jobs but I am currently doing a post grad and by the end of this year will be more highly qualified and applying for the kind of jobs offering much more money.
So where does that leave us when we Marry. Pre nups etc..
We both plan to work when we have children. But he can work from home with kind of work..

If you want the advice I’d give my own children, it’s to not get married. I’m sad to say that but as the law stands it’s a very bad arrangement, particularly if you will be the higher earner. People in the “real world” don’t seem to understand why I say this. But you really do not want to end up losing your life savings and with an extremely uncertain future.

A just system would look at the whole picture, not deem each partner earner half when clearly they did not!

Can that be applied retrospectively to husbands who were the higher earners?

This is exactly the scenario I am concerned about in my thread WWYD - concerned for Ex's GF
As this is exactly what my Ex is all about 😠
My ex only ever paid £50 PW towards ALL home expenses & spent his money on anything he wanted for himself whilst running up £100k in debt during the course of our marriage, on nothing he had to show for it.
Never ever will I get married again.
I'm so sorry you went through this, as I know how it feels.

He even tried to take my parents inheritance just before we divorced but fortunately I had my dad write me out of his will & leave it in trust to my daughter. I would rather have no inheritance than allow him to take that too.