Dear STBXH

[WellWhoKnew]

Thank you for trying to save me costs of divorce by selecting a solicitor for me and by covering their costs, you are doing me a favour, I know.

Thank you for being fair by offering to take only 40% of the assets in my name to enable a quick resolution to the end of the marriage, which is what you want.

Of course, I realise that the assets in your name aren't mine because you are the man. Sorry you are THE MAN. I do keep getting things wrong, so I perfectly understand that you want a divorce.

All the same, thank you for offering me a speedy divorce by asking me to agree that we have been separated for two years so that I can move on with my life. Okay, we both know it's less than two weeks in actualment since you walked. I remain in shock but I'm so grateful that you have my best interests at heart during this difficult time.

So, Soon To Be Ex-Husband, thank you.

Because you are a twat and I'm so much better off without you.

His solicitor is going along with all his fuckwittery which makes it twice as scary.

It's when you know it's all for the Money.

Never ceases to amaze me:

" Does your client think that because her car is in her name it actually belongs to her?" "Items XYX have been paid for with funds coming from my client's company".

"My client will consider making contributions to the children in the future depending on his relationship with the children". And in the next sentence: "it is not appropriate to discuss the children at the same time as financial matters".

"My client accidentally removed your client's bike. He mistook it for his own."

"My client is still staying in a hotel, due to his financial situation".

completely

The first point could be true as in the registered keeper isn't necessarily the owner, but child maintenance should be paid no matter what the relationship is! The only variation would be maybe the amount depending in how much time they spend with each parent.

The rest is

I suspect that his sudden interest in the children may have to do with money.

My car is my car and has nothing to do with who paid my wages. I keep saying if he owns other staff's assets too, because he pays their wages and not even this is strictly true, as the company pays the wages and he is an employee of this company too. So it's not his own money that he privately paid me. This is exactly where the confusion comes in. He keeps saying that he pays me, but I am an employee on the payroll with a job and a contract and employment rights in the same way that he is.

Gosh, these men are mental! I can't understand how their solicitors can even contemplate sending out letters with this ridiculousness in them. Are there not professional standards or something? I know they do what the client insists instructs, but these latest financial crap demands? Surely, the solicitors have a duty to tell their clients that it is absolute bollocks?

Or is it a codefor to tell other legal professionals that these guys are dicks?

It's a case of "No point in shooting the messenger"

They have a duty to tell their clients it is absolute bollocks. They also have to a duty to warn their clients of the potential consequences of taking any course of action.

However, if the client persists, because they are 'the master of the universe', then a solicitor will probably get them to sign that they have been advised of x, y and z but have ignored it.

The solicitors are just doing their jobs, I'm afraid - just like traffic wardens, tax collectors and traffic-cone putter-uppers-on-motorways people. You don't have to like 'em, but they got bills to pay too.

We were discussing this recently and it seems that solicitors are supposed to "manage" their clients but can obviously not control them.

Jux - that's what I thought; your solicitor is supposed to sit you down and say 'look, this is the law, you pay child maintenance. Your 'relationship' with your dc is up to you, but the fact that they are on this earth is down to you and you will pay 50% of their upkeep.'
Or 'no, you can't claim your exWs assets because you did not pay her wages any more than you are paying mine by employing me to act for you, dumbass'
But I suspect that it all pays their bills. And how.

When I married my DH I told him "Buddy, you better be sure because I've been through one divorce so the only way out of this marriage for you is in a pine box". Threads like this make me remember what hell divorce is, and my first marriage ended in a pretty uncomplicated (young, no children, no real assets, his threat for spousal support laughed at by my attorney) and relatively painless. I take my flowery, fancy hat off to all of you courageous ladies who are fighting the good fight to keep what is rightfully yours and to protect your children.

Solicitors are just their to advise you on the law, they cannot compel you to obey it. That's the police/CSA/courts responsibility.

Solicitors will warn the client that if you don't do this, these are the possible consequences. They are protected by certain legal privileges, like a doctor/patient has.

So they can't lie for you and if they 'know' for a fact you are lying, they can be excused from their duties (e.g. you admit to them you beat the crap out of STBXH, but wish to enter a defence of "I wasn't there 'guv") - they can discharge themselves of their legal duty.

It all assumes that the client is telling the truth and nothing but the truth to their solicitor. I know mine was very firm with me and asked a lot of questions, on many occasions, to cross check my version of events on certain matters but there are other things that my word is just taken as that. I could be lying through my teeth but that's STBXH's solicitor's job to concern himself with.

And that's how he's going to be paying his bills!

their - there! FFS!

We were discussing this recently and it seems that solicitors are supposed to "manage" their clients but can obviously not control them.

On my DPs case, the judge aswell as her own barrister and solicitor told her to accept what DP had offered yet still she dragged it out in court for years and changed solicitors.

However at FH she ended up with a massive legal bill... And the judge ordered exactly what DP had offered years previously

I did not know this before WWK and I was wondering why Toad admitted, but of course minimised so many of his misdemeanours, "she had only minor injuries" "I was having to restrain her", "I had to push her into the turn pike to keep it open" (human door stopper) etc and my solicitor said that it was his solicitor's duty to the court to tell the truth and therefore he could not remove Toad's admissions from his statement. The fact that he righteously admitted everything he thought he was entitled to do speaks volumes as far as his attitude is concerned.

Some people feel such righteous indignation that they just can't stop themselves...but it tends to pan out that common sense prevails.

Dear STBXH,

My Friday night is protected -

I have your Form EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Not that I can be bothered with it tonight. I imagine it is a 'fair and generous, full and frank representation of you'.

Full of shite.

Wife, off out.

Oh come on, do start on the Questionnaire now, don't forget to ask about the value of his Rolex. (I forgot)

Of course Toad asked about the value of my jewellery that he bought me: not worth mentioning what did he expect? He knew how much little it was worth: just enough to start up the legal process.

WWK

Enjoy your night out and read Form E tomorrow.

Just remember that it is not naice to laugh at stupid people like your STBXH

Yep - always better to mitigate than deny, Karen.

He says: the last thing I wanted to do was hurt her.

Clever use of language IS a solicitor's job. Does he mean:

I wanted to torment her mentally, maximising this stressor, and then finally inflict physical pain as the final act of the evening.

Or does he mean:

I didn't intend to cause her any injury whatsover: it was unfortunate that during the row she instigated, the phone I threw at the wall, in the opposite direction to where she was standing, unfortunately ricocheted off the sofa and into her ear. Not my fault, guv!

It's a moot point: whatever the truth of the story is: violence has occurred as a result of Toad/Twat's actions - which in neutral terms IS the truth.

Child having a temper tantrum/Teenage outburst? What will the Twat do - throw a phone at a wall? Smack him/her in the chops? What does that teach the child about managing difficult situations?

No one needs to speculate on the hypothetical situation, just establish behaviour of one or both parents, and the family dynamics.

Thankfully, I have not experienced physical violence in my marriage, and I'm sorry you have . I still think my STBXH is a cunt though.

Karen - do not make jokes about Rolex's! His is, apparently, missing and I am apparently the prime suspect...

I would like to know if it's on the Form E though!

Another version: "I did not push her, she does not know what the word "push" means. She stumbled, because she has no awareness of space and she was surprised to find my foot under her heel and fell into the open drawer and cut her leg".

"It was an accident. She does not know what the word "accident" means."

Now he's accused you of stealing his watch? Ahahahahahahahahaha!

I wonder what else you have stolen which can be set against the settlement? Be honest with us, what did you do with the Ferrari? And was it you who burned down the holiday home?

Did he actually have a valuable watch?

... oh god, Karen, what a totally horrible specimen.

When I asked about "missing" assets I did not inquire about the value of personal possessions that were not on the list, I asked about family assets that were not listed or listed with incorrect values, in my opinion. Toad asked about everything. Down to the last penny.

It should be interesting to see if he has mentioned the Rolex.

Annie - and the rest: I'm hiding/embezzling assets up the yingyang, allegedly. He was most upset that now I've got new bank passports he couldn't monitor any 'unusual' transactions.

The judge was most amused. Not.

These kinds of allegations have been on-going for months hence his utter pre-occupation with what I'm putting in my Form E - he wants to be certain I haven't missed anything.

How kind and considerate, eh!

You can see why I'm so over him already. It gets very dull very quickly being on the back foot all the time. That said, I didn't get grief on Thursday in the manner I was braced for so he may have been told to reign it in.

After all, he has a solicitor charging per email now as well. We can both do the cc'ing game on a level playing field now. Not that I would - but he won't risk it.

Either that or my SHL's legal-speak of ODFOD has got through to him.

I don't care. I just want my divorce and my financial settlement!

And in other news: No holiday til this is over .