Please help translate these two sentences...

[TeenageWildlife]

"To pay to the Petitioner for the benefit of the children the sum of £3,000 per annum for each child (that being £6000 in total) for one year. Such sum shall be paid monthly in advance by standing order starting on xxxx"

Does this mean for one year only? Or every year?

I'm not in the legal profession, but I would say "per annum" means every year. I would expect there to be some indication as to at what age payments would cease though.

Hopefully someone legal will come along soon and advise..

Agree with BSP it's every year.

I thought it was for one year some years ago, and now I think it should have been paid each year, but I need to Know for sure. There is no cut off date mentioned.

Solo, are you a lawyer? I know per annum means each year - but that "for one year" - thing makes me question it.

Dh (lawyer) says it's bad drafting and the brackets are in the wrong place. Should be (£6000 in total for one year).

He thinks it means per year ongoing but you should ask for clarification.

Thank you - how could they make such a critical error?! How ambiguous!

He's not a family lawyer but does do litigation.

He says the courts would look at background negotiations to form a view. If there has been agreement previous that says £6000 per annum the courts will be able to see the drafting error.

He would like me to stress again that he is not a matrimonial lawyer but is applying standard litigation practice.

This document is actually from 2004 and my divorce was immensly costly to me (Involving Manches and Charles Russell - you can only imagine...) I am so reluctant to go back to them - who would I ask about this?

I'll try re-poting and request family lawyer to interpret...

Posting even...

very bad drafting as it is not clear at all (and I'm a family lawyer)
Normally there would be a cut off, such as, until the youngest child reached 17/18/ceased full time education etc.

I don't understand the need for the 'one year' if it is meant to be ongoing.

I'm suprised any DJ would make/approve such an order with that wording

x-post with OP's comment about when it was made.

Surely when negotiations were taking place (or when order was made) it was made clear what the intentions were, ie to be paid every year or just for one year?

Dh is impressed. (Means nothing to me).

He says if you have legal on your household insurance they may pick it up. However he says you may want to get in touch with criminal negligence lawyer to sue after the mistake is cleared up.

In my opinion, the fact that there is no cut off date/event implies that it was just for one year. No one would expect a father to continue paying 3k per annum for a child when they are in their 20's and 30's.

MOSagain dh keeps translating what you said back into legal speak.

Dh says that's why it's the intention of the parties that needs to be found out.

Why would they only suggest he paid for one year though?

Ooops! no I'm not! and I haven't got my glasses on and clearly, squinting at the screen isn't working! sorry!!

eh?

Because he has good lawyers. How friendly was the divorce? It could have been a ploy.

The difference so far is £42,000 between the two possible wordings. But I spent more than that trying to clear things up the first time around, so I don't know what to do.

TheOneWithThe Hair - yes he has the best - Manches! but where does that leave me now?

The words "for one year" to me mean one year of payments only. "Per annum" is there to differentiate from per month for example. This may well not have been the intention though given the circumstances of a divorce/child support.

If I were you I'd go back to your solicitor from 2004 to seek clarification. It's either their poor drafting or their poor checking which has lead to the ambiguity and they should resolve it. You shouldn't have to pay for this. As for the details of the partner dealing with complaints and tell them you're very disappointed and will be contacting the SRA.

Ultimately you could pursue a professional negligence action if you have overpaid/underpaid but it shouldn't need to get that far. Even if firm unwilling to help too much their insurers would not want to argue a case like this where the drafting is so so poor.

Good luck. I'm a professional negligence solicitor (defendant side). You'll get it sorted.

If this is regards to child maintenence then it stands to reason it's every year.

£6000 = £500/mth = £250/ch/mth.

That's quite a high amount of child maintenence but it certainly isn't such a high payment that you would expect it as a one off to cover X number of years of raising a child.

Could you not make an appointment with another solicitor for a free consultation. If it's a case of bad wording - and your EX probably knows this - then it should be easliy resolved.

I do not see how his solicitor could argue that he shouldn't have to be paying child support.

I'm sorry but I don't really think you have a claim. If this order was made in 2004, and the 3k per child was only paid for one year and not since, why have you waited 8 years before raising the issue that there was a mistake in the drafting/intentions?