Litigation Loans to fund divorce

[Highlandheath]

Any views, experiences, recommendations please, or do these contribute to what Mostyn describes in JvJ as "gross leaching of costs" and solicitors charging for nothing but time?

If someone lies under oath they can go to prison - Archer, Aitkin and many others have been jailed. I suspect some spouses are not always on the right side of the sword of truth.

it is hard to avlue small privae companies and can cost a lot of money. I sometimes think the best solution in cases where wife wants all the equity in the house and not the company then to be fair to both sides is each have half the shares and a directorship and each half the equity as it seems to be so hard to know what small companies are worth and so easy to run them down or build them up later.

yes I have the evidence he lied it is plastered all over the company website

Thought even if you had representation at Final Hearing you are entitled to write on post it notes any questions you think Counsel should ask? Why did you not prompt them?

Seem to remember you have been on MN for some time now. Have you made any progress with the alleged failure of the system? Are you taking it to appeal?

@MissedTheBoatAgain

If you are aware that I have been on MN for some time have you actually read my posts - my DAB did not turn up to my Final
hearing - she informed me Saturday my hearing was on Tuesday.

I suffer with depression at times of stress I cannot function - I had prepared a file for the judge in addition to the normal hearing files - for her to refer to when I became emotional as i knew I would.

Except I didn’t expect my X’s barrister to attack my MH so viciously as he did - constantly asking why I was unable to work, making out my MH Is all in my head which ironically it is - but that I don’t really have depression despite many many many letters on file - this attack only stopped when I ran out the court - the judge did not stop this - why did she let it continue to the point where I said I feel suicidal - does that quantify what I’m saying. YOu get to this point because nobody believes what the fuck you are saying - despite the proof - what sort of justice system is this - my solicitors told me i needed a four bed house - my solicitors told me to spend £40k on a new car - my solicitors told me I would definitely get joint lives spousal - either they were so out of touch with what is current decisions in court to be professionally incompetent or they were playing a game.

“Alleged failure of the system” - of course you have to say this - this system pays your wages!

“Am I taking it to appeal” - now you see I think this is another manipulation of the system - 28 days you get to appeal - why not longer - the court doesn’t work on 28 days to anything - I was fucked when I came out of that court room - not the full final hearing in Feb where I self repped because my barrister didn’t turn up - but the March hearing - the little one hour hearing just to split the pension - except I had a barrister here - she identified all the previous failings - the reason why the Feb hearing should have been adjourned, the lies my x told to the judge, the decision that I could return to full time work in a couple of years based on what Exactly? But you see she too didn’t stand a chance because the x’ barrister here - different to the Feb one - was an old chum of the judge - both worked at same chambers!

She asked for a retrial because my Feb one was unfair - she asked for an appeal - the judge said no - I wonder why ? She prepared a file for me to pursue an appeal if I wanted.

Except my head was fucked - i’d Done everything I could to prepare a file - I’d spent £93k on legal fees - you now what I reckon I could have done bugger all, no paperwork, no solicitor and not come out any worse off - why did I go through this not to protect myself but my kids! KIds - priority and All that! I’d like to fucking know right now who’s priority they are!

So to appeal another £30k maybe? To go through what I’d just been through even I’m not that bloody stupid!

Except right now my head’s fucked - I have to give notice on the rent of the former family home tomorrow - 2 months notice- this is 18 Feb! I can’t afford to continue to pay the rent til August and end of lease! The house I’m buying is 200 miles away - £240k as opposed to the £450k! I can’t afford anything other than a one bed flat where I live - I’m paying DS school fees because cunt x claimed he couldn’t afford them - this was when my DS was suicidal - in case you missed this bit!

So right now I can’t make the sums work - not like the judge whose sums did not add up - why? Who the fuck knows - when you do your case studies do the sums have to add up or do they say oh it’s adrift by £72 k - never mind it’s close enough!

Well that £72k makes a huge fucking difference to me! And more to the point I emailed her but we’ve all experienced “lost in the post”

So @Xenia - what I want to know is if I pay a visit to the old bill and say look my x lied in court here’s the proof - will they trott him off to clink - or because I’m joe bloggs and he’s not a politician - although he was personality of the year in his industry! - will it get lost In the never ending to do pile.

See I have to make a decision -the x is aware of all above - he knows I’m going to be moving - because the kids will have to live with him to finish their a levels - but he will not communicate with me - ignores ignores ignores - but I’ve also had to make sure I’ve bought a 3 bed house because I can’t actually rely on him to do this - and it may all go tits up! This will be school fees down the pan kids mental health down the pan everything down the pan except the company!

This judgement of fact - who will have a copy - x solicitor ? Will it be on court file along with my various emails that never seemed to be received? I think I need a copy of this because it must have the maths! If there isn’t one is this a procedural failure of the judge - is this like a form e - you know a document that’s part of the process - except maybe judges can decide oh I won’t bother with that today!

So missedtheboat what have you got to say now - full of vitriol perhaps? I over exaggerated the figures?

I used to be a mortgage broker - let’s imagine a client came to me and said I want to buy a house I’ve seen this one I like it it’s £500k - they have never owned a house before - they have no idea how it works - all they have been told is find a house you like and we’ll take it from there.

So they have £100k deposit - they had the sense to save this - and need a mortgage of £400k they earn £50k. So I know there’s no way they can afford it - but they really like the house and tell me it’s their dream home - so I say well you never know it depends on the bank manager of the day - let’s put your salary down as £150k . Now they also don’t know that this will be confirmed by their employer - why would they they’ve never done this before - and I don’t tell them - why well because they really love the house and I don’t want to say you cannot afford it because then they may go elsewhere. So I play along with it - hopefully someone else may buy it and they’ll never know or I can just say oh that bank manager Yes he doesn’t like new builds - never lends money on new builds - I’m sure I told you this at the start. So they say can we have our deposit back? Oh no that got used for all the paperwork - did you think it was for the house? No I’m sure I said it was for the paperwork and you need another £100k for the house!

Who’s at fault in this situation missed - the client or the mortgage broker?

Right now I feel sick - my heart is starting to pump crazy - I Bet you’re going to tell me the client and come up with some bullshit as to why it was their fault - and you know what if you were convincing enough I may believe you because ive been gaslighted before and right now I’m pretty vulnerable - but we all know it’s the mortgage broker, the professional the one who does this day In day out, the one with qualifications and how many years experience - but no it’s the client she wanted a house with a pink door - if only she’d chosen one with a blue door it may all have been different!

Now I have to get up and tell my kids what’s happening - before Christmas or after Xmas ? Or If I ignore it will it go away - or do I pay a visit to my x,s office and ask him why the fuck does he not reply to emails about the kids living arrangements -do I wnt to get police involved - damn quickest way to do it!

Oh and apologies if I Come across as a bit irrational - I am fucking rational as hell - just dealing with a bunch of incompetent arseholes!

Something odd here. Appeal denied? Applicant who has MH told by solicitors they need a £40K car? If someone had MH would they be safe to drive a car? Applicant needs a 4 bedroom house? Guess there must be 3 dependent children involved?

On the question above about lying under oath, first check it was under oath or was in a written witness statement which contained a "statement of truth". I fear some divorcing couples do lie sadly and I agree most of them probably do not get jailed for that.

It sounds like from this that getting the financial orde r- consent order in these cases over turned is probably more likely to get the other spouse a remedy than putting the other spouse in jail smab.co.uk/dishonesty-in-divorce-a-warning/

In theory people can bring a private criminal prosecution although they are quite rare and the prosecutors probably have a right to take it over.

In other words it may not matter if an appeal is out of time if you act quickly once a major failure to disclose comes to light later.

Could you rent near by until the children finish A levels so they don't have to move in with their father (if they would rather live with their mother)?

@MissedTheBoatAgain

I can only conclude that you are a Goady F&&ker

£40k car was equivalent to what x had just lease - you know through the company that was going down the pan - luckily I didn’t listen to my sol on this - I bought the one I’d been leasing think £13k

I was told 4 bed due to cancer diagnosis and MH in that if I was ill I would need a carer for me and/or kids

Your ignorance around MH astounds me - safe to drive car? Which planet due you live on

THe more you post the more abusive you seem - or are you just havin a laugh?

The ignorance being shown on this thread from people allegedly 'in the professions' is just astonishing.

I honestly think it is a choice not to see what is going on. 'Litigation loans to fund divorce' is the name of this thread. So we know that arbitration and solicitors subscribing to this scheme are invested in it.

So it is not in their interests to entertain the possibility these schemes cause as many if not more problems than they solve.

They are not intersted in the fact some of the schemes can lead to repossession of property or assets they are held against because their bills have been paid. As the particularly charming poster

@zsazsajuju put it ...why would they care how they got paid?

This demonstrates that it is not understood what lies behind these loans. They are not normal loans. There are in many cases a series of loan platforms with unidentified investors putting the money up to invest in a particular case and affording themselves power over the assets in that case.

This is astounding stuff. The common people going through divorce could never dream that this is even possible. It is an ethical minefield.

I have seen the documents. Nothing in them that gives any reasssurance that the loan company or investors have any obligations to the persons whose assets they are holding under pawn. Oh no, just that they must not erode them beyond a third of their value so that the 2 parties are left with a third each.

@greenberet I would not waste your time arguing the toss on here.

@Xenia is offering helpful comments. Delighted to hear someone had to deliver up their helicopter!

What is being avoided here is that where solicitors/barristers have contributed to the lie and actually facilitated it who is the most guilty..them or the lying spouse?

I think they should all go down as they have all played the game.

Most lawyers don't die as they lose their career so it isn't as common as perhaps some suggeest on this thread. However some do. You can see every single week of the year details of who has been struck off. The problem we have if we move to unregulated lawyers is that there won't be that process but some may think that is better more free competition. It is certainly a difficult issue.

I am paid by business clients and I bill them every month and do not continue to work for them if they don't pay so, so do not need to get involved in loans. I am sure every solicitor in the land would much prefer just to be paid for their work rather than have some kind of complex arrangement. Abolishing loans for litigation, no win nofee, paying someone else's legal litigation bills etc etc might be a very good thing and could bring us back to a simplicity that you pay for work done. No win no fee (conditional fee) ways of working which are common in personal injury cases used to be illegal in the UK, even in my day and if you funded someone's case that was bad form and there were laws against champerty and we didn't have things like litigation funders. Most people did not get legal aid and many did not have the money for lawyers which is why these new ways of funding came in but I would certainly support going back to how things were.

Well said @Xenia

The issue is that the complex structuring and obligations and too many fingers in the pie means abuse and disorder and offences can occur.

Also this is simply way way beyond ordinary people which most posters on here set out as being and who have ended up mini experts in a murky field of complexity.

It is simply not fit for purpose because the public have to be protected. If any lawyer on here thinks it is ok that I was not told or advised of a litigation loan existing in my case where assets were charged and where proceedings lasted from 2014 to 2017 I would like to hear why that is ok.

Thank you again for useful comments.

(my "die" above should have been lie... although my quote from Shakespeare above about killing all lawyers perhaps makes it an apt typo).

I don't know what the rules are on disclosure of litigation loans to the other spouse when they are taken out. Probably some spouses would say it is none of their spouse's business if they sell their body to pay for the case or borrow from their uncle or new lover or max out their cards or borrow from the bank or a divorce loan lender or use pay day loans. I think there is a duty to disclose to the other side in general litigation if you enter into a no win no fee/conditional fee arrangement but that is not quite the same.

Hi @Xenia

Hilarious...think that was a true Freudian slip!

Anyway, lawyers...whether expired or alive...have numerous obligations to the court, to their code of conduct, to morality, to their client, to their reputation...and in all of this honesty has to be the best course of action.

If, by not being honest and transparent, they have perverted the course of justice and thus denied a party their rightful access to a judicial process, balanced informed decision making and a fair hearing that seems a pretty cut and dried and serious offence to me.

Worse still, where there is an actual effect which changes the nature of control or ownership or encumbrance on property subject to the proceedings it is surely reprehensible not to declare that? It is an encumbrance that changes everything. If the encumbrance is applied to all the assets then the case is stitched up and there is no contest. If there is no contest there is no cause to warrant litigation.

If the family court is now simply a playground for dirty litigation to be carried out on its own set of rules because nobody is going to police it, or apply terms of conduct , not even the judiciary then we have societal breakdown and the law has become an ass.

In effect the terms of the loans which take double whammy security in equitable charges and have investors providing the money are tipping the scales before the case is even weighed up.

To use an analogy - the matter of who was the most guilty in the issue of Trump and his lawyer who acted to cover up his misdemeanours is much the same issue. The attorney Michael Cohen will pay the price of his actions but what of the person he acted to 'protect' - that may be left to karma for now and that generally is determined by the wise old hand of time.

As I understand it in family law there is ongoing duty of disclosure not just at time of form e but at anytime your circumstances change that has an impact on the financial settlement.

I fail to understand how a litigation loan would not fall into this especially when it is secured on the family home.

As to borrowing from family members, maxing out credit cards this too has an impact on the spouse especially if it is treated as a liability - and deducted from equity both tactics that my x used to minimise what was in the pot!

To Greenberet

Maybe you were told many things before settlement was decided by the courts, but none of them seem to have materialised? That suggests to me that whoever made these promises either did not know what they were doing or you were spurred on to a final hearing by false claims?

My ex claims she was told she would “win hands down” after the FDR. Nothing further from the truth as outcome at final hearing was vastly different.

Joint lives Spousal Maintenance ruled out and capped at 4 years. £400/month as opposed to £3,500+ on the Ex’s Form E which was seen for the first time at the final hearing. Ex had to buy her own car as opposed to £13K being provided by myself as suggested by FDR Judge. Ex also had to pay her own moving costs as opposed to £7K being provided by myself. Lump sum was less than £100K as opposed to £125K recommendation by FDR Judge. Reason for reduced lump sum was costs being awarded in my favour.

So the FDR completely failed in its objective of providing what may the outcome at a final hearing. Not surprised considering it was rushed through in minutes.

Judge at final hearing acknowledged the shortcomings of FDR and the time constraints, but was still astonished that FDR was allowed to go ahead without Ex’s Form E. They were even more astonished when they heard that judge had made a recommendation without Applicants Form E. However, the biggest astonishment of all was Ex’ adviser quoting the FDR at the final hearing!!!!!!!!

Missed

Yes to the following

Maybe you were told many things before settlement was decided by the courts, but none of them seem to have materialised?

And yes to especially this -

That suggests to me that whoever made these promises either did not know what they were doing or you were spurred on to a final hearing by false claims?

And this is the reason for my anger because many a time I said X will do this and you need to be on top of it and many a time I said I don’t want to end up at final hearing - had they listened to me and actioned what I was saying they would have smoked him out - but their agenda was influenced by £££ and greed!

So my question is why are things said at FDR that are so far out of line with what is agreed at FH - surely the judges should be singing from the same hymn sheet - or is this part of the scam too - because if we were all able to settle without a FH what need would there be for all these judges and legal bods!

You mentioned they book 3 FDR’s at the same time - I remember judge at mine telling X to stop mucking about with the company valuation and get it done - but she couldn’t give an indication of what final outcome would look like as there was no company valuation at this stage - however she also mentioned jnt lives spousal - but then I got a ticking off for not making a counter offer - which given that there was no company valuation seems bloody absurd - she was ticking me off for not doing what she had been unable to do herself - there seems to be a bit of an unwritten game going on here between applicants and respondents solicitors in that they each know how to extort the most legal fees!

And why is what is said at FdR kept out if FH - surely it should be you were told this at FDR - this is how the settlement is going to be and the one who’s offer is least like what you have been told should pay the costs for protracting the divorce hearing!

@Hiddentruth fyi - seems like a lot of complete bollocks going on - I’ve got your Pm!

their agenda was influenced by £££ and greed!

Oh yes!! Mr Creosote and Ms Munster were had definitely taken on board those SRA Regulations that say the first duty of any solicitor is to fleece the client and screw up massively and then shrug their shoulders... Promise big, and fuck up bigger....!

@Highlandheath - you’ve made me laugh but it’s shite really x

FDR is intended to be a without prejudice meditation. As without prejudice it is meant to encourage both partners to be upfront.

As per posts by legal on another thread FDR are booked at 3 per hour. Well short of the minimum one hour per Hearing that is meant to happen. Allowing for people entering and leaving the hearing room there maybe 15 minutes maximum. Nowhere near enough time to read all the papers and decide someone’s future. However, a mandatory part of the process? Not possible to proceed to a final hearing without an FDR.

Although you can easily get divofrced without any of these hearings at all and no form Es - just do it like I did and loads of other people do - negotiate with your spouse, compromise and get the consent order approved by the court. However I accept that some spouses will not offer anything or will not compromise even to a 50/50 deal.

Xenia my x would not communicate with me - never mind compromise - even now he refuses to communicate with me over kids future living arrangements - he’s an arse - you can’t communicate with an arse!

Missed - yes I know it’s an integral part of the process but seeing as it is mandatory whatever is discussed should be able to be divulged at FH - otherwise anyone can say anything as in your case and if solicitors are guilty of leading a client to a Fah under false pretences then they should be culpable

I am more and more convinced that the process is just unfit for purpose and is putting people at unacceptable and unwarranted risk.

Judge at FDR makes a recommendation, but not an order that is binding. So neither partner is obligated to accept.

If FDRs are scheduled at 3 per hour then they are never going to be effective. Just another day that has to be paid for.

If they are not effective what’s the point? Just seems in my case and yours - missed - they were highly misleading -

@Hiddentruth - I agree with you!

Can’t remember the name of the thread, but even the legal people seemed to agree that FDR was a waste of time. One suggested solution was to make legal aid more available, but I don’t see how that will help? If someone is not incurring legal costs what have they got to lose by taking the proceedings all the way to a final hearing in hope they get a better outcome?

You could have a dedicated website which gave couples at least a rough idea once they keyed in details of what a judge was likely to order so they could have sensible settlement discussions but I agree that if one party just won't play ball then the only choice is going to be a final court hearing where the judge decides who gets what although even that is not worth bothering with if your spouse gives up work, disappears abroad and there are no assets you can get your hands on I suppose.

A lot of couples don't own a house and don't have much cash so there isn't much to divide which makes sorting out the finances a lot easier but for those with more I agree it is very hard.

One of the issues that is a major concern is the pressure courts are under following the demise of legal aid for family matters. Now there is a significant number of litigants in person which does mean courts are having to take far more time to deal with them. Is court ever the best way of dealing with family matters? Probably not, because you both end up with an order which isn't satisfying either party. Which is why ADR is pushed by various participants of the system. It is the cheapest method to deal with disputes, but again, unless the mediator is scrupulous, it is possible for one party to be at significant risk of being manipulated into accepting a deal that is considerably poorer than if they go to court. Particularly if they haven't taken legal advice. However you always have to balance this against the emotional and financial costs of dispute. My partner and I dealt with absolutely everything ourselves and used a solicitor only for the divorce app. It cost 450 quid. By far the best way to deal with matters for everyone but particularly better for any children.

In my opinion legal aid should be available for many things but do you really think public money is well spent dealing with two people who for whatever reason are unable to put their children first and emotions and egos to one side in order to reach an agreement? I think not. If people want to spend their own money that's their decision.