Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

Did I get a fair deal at the FDR?

41 replies

SandyMae · 23/09/2017 08:19

I had the FDR hearing yesterday (representing myself) and I thought I did get a fair deal so consented to it and it's gone into a consent order. Today I don't feel so sure anymore 😳

Anyone who can give me any input, was this a fair deal?

-I get to keep the house. If I can't get exH off the mortgage in 56 days it must've be sold, but all proceeds go to me. There's about £250k of equity in the house.

-£150 a month in child maintenance for DS until he turns 18. (Aged 9 now)

I thought it was rather generous but now I'm just wondering why they let me off so easily so there must be a catch? 🤔

OP posts:
spanieleyes · 23/09/2017 09:20

It depends on the circumstances ( I received £3000 per month until the children went to secondary school and I went back to work, then £1000 a month until they finished university together with the house equity but that was because he earned quite a bit! ) Do YOU feel it was generous? ( £150 a month sounds low but again, it depends on how much your ex earns!)

babybarrister · 23/09/2017 09:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

prh47bridge · 23/09/2017 10:42

No-one can tell if this is fair without a lot more information. But, as babybarrister says, if this is now a court order your chances of getting it changed are minimal.

It may be worth noting that in 12 months time either you or your ex can go to the CMS regarding child maintenance. Their calculation will then replace the figure in your consent order.

Original poster
SandyMae · 23/09/2017 11:50

It has gone into a consent order, yes. So I understand it is what it is. Just wanted some input on whether it seemed fair or not! I get that it's hard to say without knowing the full context of course!

But seems like you could say the child maintenance is a bit on the lower end of the scale then?

Poss weighed up by the fact that he gets nothing of the equity of the house?

Am I being reasonably reasonable with my reasoning here?

OP posts:
Caspiana · 23/09/2017 11:54

Were there any other assets which he got to keep, or did he walk away with nothing while you keep the house and then have to pay you maintenance?

How much does he earn? Did you keep the house and accept lower maintenance in return? The maintenance order can be varied if there is good reasons btw.

It does sound like you got a very fair deal!

meyouus · 23/09/2017 11:54

Put simply no you didn't. Yes you got a good deal on the house, but definitely not on the cm, And you haven't been awarded any spousal payments?

QuiteLikely5 · 23/09/2017 11:57

How much does he earn? What did he get?

That's the only way we can begin to decide if you got a good deal

QuiteLikely5 · 23/09/2017 11:57

Plus someone just said after twelve months you can go to the CSA

Bet your ex didn't know that!

meyouus · 23/09/2017 12:03

also what about pension? I bet he hasn't been paying any of that for you while you've been raising his child...

Original poster
SandyMae · 23/09/2017 12:05

He used to earn quite a lot, around £90k p.a (which is how we could afford this house in the first place!) but now he's been struggling with finding consistent income for the last two years. Last tax return that he submitted to court now was on £35k p.a. Atm (or so he says at least) he's unemployed.

He walked away with nothing. I got to keep house and car.

No spousal.

CM of £150 p.m.

Input on this, now you've got some more context?

OP posts:
Original poster
SandyMae · 23/09/2017 12:06

Oh yes, got half of his pension too.

OP posts:
Original poster
SandyMae · 23/09/2017 12:13

Ah, no one more thing to consider re fairness of the deal, there's this paragraph which I understood from exH's barrister means a clean break? (Correct?)

FDR was yesterday, not sure I understand the order, which bit refers to it being a clean break?

"Except as provided in this order the Respondent's claims for periodical payments orders shall be dismissed, and she shall not be entitled to make any further application in relation to the marriage under the Matrimonial Causes Act..."

OP posts:
AliceTown · 23/09/2017 12:21

How is he paying £150 a month if he's unemployed? Is he living off savings?

Original poster
SandyMae · 23/09/2017 12:30

I have no idea. He wanted to pay nothing but even the judge said he needs to pay CM for his child. Something about he needs to utilise his earning capacity I think they said.

OP posts:
Original poster
SandyMae · 23/09/2017 12:31

And his tax return shows he has earned money during last tax year, whether he's employed now or not

OP posts:
Caspiana · 23/09/2017 12:32

Do you work or have any earning capacity OP?

Judge thought he should be earning more than he is.

Original poster
SandyMae · 23/09/2017 12:39

I have taken on a part time job since the separation, used to be a sahm.

Aha, so they thought he's fibbing about what he could earn?

OP posts:
youarenotkiddingme · 23/09/2017 14:30

I have no idea ew divorce and courts and settlements so I'm seeing this as an outsider.

To be it looks like they are saying
• you get FT job and take on mortgage and bills for current house or
•you sell the house and have enough to buy a decent sized property for you and ds (mortgage free).

Only you know if the amount of equity is reasonable for you to manage to buy somewhere local?

They have only awarded £150 pcm in CM so they are fully expecting you to meet most costs of raising ds. That money will just about cover food/clothes for a month for a 9yo.

The judge seems to fully accept that your ex could get a job that pays 3/4K a month - but yet only £150 goes to you so he's expecting him to be able to fund a property from it.

millymollymoomoo · 23/09/2017 14:31

Not necessarily fibbing. They're basically saying if he used to earn 90k and now earns 35k he should do what he can to increase his earning potential. What are you doing to increase yours as well?

prh47bridge · 23/09/2017 14:36

Judge thought he should be earning more than he is

I see no reason for drawing that conclusion. If this was a consent order the judge would only have been concerned that the deal was not unreasonable. The judge would not have insisted on maintenance being in line with the CMS calculation.

I repeat that no-one on here can tell you whether or not this is a fair deal. A lot more information would be needed to judge. And as far as I am aware most of the people posting on this thread are not legally qualified. If you want to know you need to consult a solicitor. But I really don't see any point in torturing yourself over it. You can't change it now.

prh47bridge · 23/09/2017 14:38

Not necessarily fibbing

Sorry - just seen your latest post. I took your initial response to mean that you thought the judge thought he was lying. Yes, the judge will want both parties to fulfil their earnings potential.

MGFM · 23/09/2017 15:33

So you got all the assets and half his pension and you don't think that is enough? It doesn't sound like he has anything left to give you!

Original poster
SandyMae · 23/09/2017 20:21

@prh47bridge so that would be why he is expected to pay CM even though not currently earning?

@MGFM I was more thinking it sounds a bit too good, so I must have missed that there is a catch somewhere

OP posts:
prh47bridge · 23/09/2017 23:40

Even if you are living on benefits you are expected to pay child maintenance.

Original poster
SandyMae · 24/09/2017 22:25

@prh47bridge yes but only like £7 per week or something if I remember correctly from looking at the CMS calculator

OP posts: