Is there a Time Limit to Appeal a Consent Order?

[Tamatave2000]

My divorce was settled in September 2016. Consent Order was sealed by Courts. ExH bought a house (outside England) in his sole name 6 years before marriage and one for myself (also outside England) 3 years before marriage. ExH put his house in trust for our children before divorce was finalized. My advisors were fully aware of the circumstances and had copy of Trust Document.

Consent Order defines the FHM (Former Matrimonial Home) and other property as being one ExH bought myself, but not his house for some reason? In terms of Property I got to keep house ExH bought for myself and Lump Sum Settlement represented most of the equity in FMH. At time my advisor thought it was a fair outcome.

I have discovered that the house ExH owned has been sold. Not sure how this can have happened if it was in Trust?

Starting to think that Trust was set up to reduce Matrimonial assets as done only the year before divorce or that children have been cheated?

I have heard that appealing a Consent Order successfully is rare and be hugely expensive. As Sealed Consent Order was issued 18 months ago am I now out of time anyway?

Sounds like either the property was, as said at the time of the divorce, in trust, or her lied at the time.

Assuming you saw the documents and it is in trust, what evidence do you have that the proceeds of sale aren't being held in trust for the children? If he's not still holding the proceeds in trust, or bought another property in which the children's interest is clearly noted, that may amount to theft, which is a matter for the police. However you have no evidence of that, it seems. Merely suspicion.

It's not a matter for appeal though.

If it turns out the property was never in trust and he just lied you need to speak to your solicitor. It might well be that you achieved a lower settlement, but it might also be that your solicitor negotiated the settlement as if the other property were in your ex's name. Your OP is unclear/confusing. You mention you got the keep the house in your sole name but also got a lump sum representing most of the equity in the FMH - the same property? Sounds like you got both the property and its value in cash.

No, she kept the second foreign property which was in her name, and got most of the equity from the FUN in this country. Is that correct OP?

A lot depends on what these foreign properties were worth.

FMH not FUN!

Ooh a flow chart! I do like a flow chart.

uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-545-5255?__lrTS=20171019203507940&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

To Collaborate & MrsBertBibby

ExH bought a property (outside England) in his sole name 6 years before marriage. He also bought me a house in my native country in my sole name 3 years before the marriage. A third property was bought in England 1 year after marriage. So there were 3 properties involved.

ExH placed the house he had in his sole name in trust for children 1 year before divorce and I was present at Solicitors office when documents were drawn up and signed. My advisor was aware that I was present when the Trust was set up and had a copy of the trust documents, but argued that was an attempt to defeat my claim an on that property so suggested that house ExH had bought for myself in my sole name was also put in trust for the children and removed from the assets to be spilt. My ExH and his advisor agreed to that proposal. However, I did not place my property in Trust as Laws in my native Country do not allow foreigners to own land and property. So for children to own the property in my native country they would have to give up their UK Citizenship as my native country does not accept dual citizenship unless obtained by marriage.

The house that was bought in England after the marriage was considered the FMH and the lump sum I received represented most of the equity of the FMH that Exh was allowed to keep as it had a mortgage which I would be unable to afford. Both Barristers thought that was best as English Courts would not/may not be able to order the sale of property that was outside of their Jurisdiction?

Wording of Consent Order seems to be clear in that what is within the order if final and represents full and final satisfaction and neither of us has any claim against property that is in sole name of the other. Order also for avoidance of doubt recorded that I keep the House in my native country and ExH keeps the FMH in England.

Just niggles me that ExH house was not mentioned in the Consent Order at all.

So you have a foreign house each and you got the majority of equity of fmh. Sounds fair enough on the surface.