Divorce and being Blackmailed

[BrilloPad]

I don't understand how the OP thinks that he's being blackmailed into buying a house, or getting a divorce, which he seems to want?

Anyone able to explain it??

And since when did CUK become a forum for newbies to get divorce advice? It's somewhat different for established members to whinge, but turning up to moan about being blackmailed and want to know how to hide assets etc. - ask a divorce lawyer!

divorce lawyers are in it for the money so have a vested interest in generating as much fees as possible.

Its a bit like having a fire, calling the fire brigade, then watching them turn up and pour napalm on it.

[fleagal]

divorce lawyers are in it for the money so have a vested interest in generating as much fees as possible.

That's not strictly true, most lawyers enjoy doing a good job for their client. And a good job, which can cost a lot, can save more than it costs.

Back to the subject at hand and the original questions. Apologies for the length of the reply, the subject matter. This is my first post but I believe it is helpful to the parent poster.

Im a Ltd company, with wife as company secretary. what advice in terms of Ltd company?
I dont have property. i had a car, which ive transferred in my sisters name.
i also have 7k stashed in ISA's. Nothing plus in our current joint accounts.
What do i do? Open a new company in parents names?

The main issue here is one of assets. Do you have assets or not? If you hide them or transfer them your actions will affect your credibility. In the case of a limited company this can be assigned a cash value which is used in calculations when dividng assets.

….if i open another company then i assume it will have to be under parents name otherwise if its under my name, then we are back to square 1 as courts will see company as my asset.

Any effort to disrupt your flow of monies will look suspicious. If you open a company in your parents name a Judge will see through this ploy as will your wife’s solicitors. If you persist with this plan your wife’s solicitors will undoubtedly make an application to the court to have your parents joined as intervenors to the action. The case will become more complicated and your legal fees will rise. Your parents will also have to seek representation or at the very least spend time acting for themselves. You may end up paying your wife’s legal costs.

If your wife can prove to the Court that she cannot live on the money she is currently receiving she can make an application to the Court for Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS) and get interim maintenance.

Not sure that matters...they're married, so starting point of any splits is 50% of all assets, including shares he owns in his ltd co.

This is incorrect. In America this may be true but in this country there are various factors to consider.

The length of marriage has an effect. A short marriage (say 3 years) usually causes the Court to put each party back into the financial position that they were in prior to the marriage. However, the longer the marriage the more likely the chance of splitting the assets 50:50.

Secondly, there is the issue of conduct. If one person did the earning and the other did the spending or dissipated assets that can adjust the balance.

Thirdly, the needs of the children and the costs of raising them are taken into account. Usually one party will have residence of the parties’ children meaning that they stay with one parent and see the other parent at weekends and/or week days. The person who has residence of the child has greater financial need than the other and is usually entitled to more than 50% (to purchase a larger house for instance).

There are a range of orders that the Court can make which of course includes ordering spousal maintenance (‘alimony’ in the USA). Spousal maintenance is not automatic and is based upon needs rather than percentage of earnings. It is common when there is a young child of the family for the Court to insist on making a ‘nominal spousal maintenance order’, usually £0.05 per annum, in favour of the parent with residence of the children to keep the issue live in case it needs to be varied.

………… {snip} If you divorce, then your wife will have a claim on your income, as will your child - there is nothing that you can do about it. This will include dividends that you might be getting, and possibly a share of your pension plan in the future. You cannot get out of paying alimony, and you should be paying support for your child.

This is a little mixed up. The financial needs of your wife will be ordered by the Court or agreed between you and your wife after legal advice. As explained above there can be a claim on you income, from all sources including dividends, but if your wife has her own earning capacity she will be expected to go out and work, child care permitting. The Court has the power to make pension sharing order but it depends upon how long you have been paying into the pension (or pensions), how many of those years were during marriage and how much those pensions are worth.

It is common to ‘jiggle’ with the calculations by paying a lump sum instead of splitting the pension. Typically you will need to find the Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) of the pension – 25% of the CETV is considered the value if it were in cash. If you had a £100k pension you can consider it to be £25k for negotiation purposes.

The needs of the child are catered for by the Child Support Agency or by agreement between the parties. The calculations are uncomplicated and payments are reduced if you have care of the child overnight regularly. In recent years there have been difficulties with calculations as self employed people who receive a wage plus dividends can benefit as dividends are not taken into account in the CSA calculations. It is common to agree a level of payment and have it recorded in a final financial order. This saves the hassle of going through the CSA. The payments are your legal responsibility and are paid to your wife for the child's benefit.

Marriage is over, therefore divorce proceedings will start when i tell them, i dont accept there demands! which is why im biding time, to get things sorted.. e.g Ltd company........

As for my son, oneday he will realise and when he is a little older, i know he will want to stay with me.

If the marriage is over then divorce is inevitable. If you have accepted this then don’t defend the (divorce) proceedings as this will cost a lot of money. If your wife issues proceedings she may ask that you pay her costs – this is normal. Offer half on the basis that you will not defend as long as she does not seek to rely upon the particulars of the divorce petition within financial proceedings.

However i do have a Ltd company, which is seen as an asset

Yep...so on divorce you will split...

If the company is providing an income and is your livelihood then the Court will not order you to break it up, sell it or otherwise dispose of it. Your wife can potentially derive an income from the business whilst you operate it and you may be able to make borrowings against the business to pay your wife a lump sum if this suits you. This will enable her to purchase a property of her own for herself and your son. BUT, if there is not enough money to do this then the Court won’t make the order.

Your wife will have to establish what her needs are. It would be unreasonable for her to have a 3 bedroom house for the two of them for instance or for that property to be in a very expensive area. You do not have a responsibility to house your in-laws unless they want to pay you rent.

From what I understand of divorce, it is your responsibility as a husband and a father to provide for your wife and child in the event of divorce (and before to be fair!).

This is semi-correct. If the wife has earnings capacity then she does not necessarily have to rely on her (ex)husband. A lot of women actually prefer to take the money and sever finances rather than be considered a leech.

My personal opinion if you want to make a clean break is to come to a settlement agreement to pay off your wife, then pay maintenance for the child. That way, the money you give her at the beginning is what she needs to use in order to sort out the accommodation etc. The monthly costs then are purely for your child's welfare.

The most sensible thing said so far. If your wife’s career prospects have been affected by motherhood it is fair to even the field a little.

You are getting slated because you suggested that you would be unhappy to see your child living in a council house and would prefer they were living on the street! This is not the view of a typical loving father (/understatement of the century/). If you want custody of your child, apply for it. ……{snip}

This is also fairly responsible advice. You can apply for residence of your son but if you have historically been the main bread winner and your wife has cared for your son then the Court is unlikely to upset the status quo. Children can adapt to change more so than you would expect but if you are unable to make the school run, parents evenings, social functions etc. due to work commitments it doesn’t really make much sense for you to look after the child does it?

On the other hand, maybe the best way to settle this more in your favour would be to divorce your wife (not wait for it to be the other way around!) citing Adultery and blaming her for the breakdown. And apply for custody of your child.

Adultery is not and never will proof of bad parenting. The two are unrelated. A common view is that adultery causes the injured party to keep all matrimonial assets. It doesn’t. That’s the way it is.

I hope the above has been of some use. There are lots of subject there and it’s fairly general as the information given was fairly general. I hope you get yourself sorted.

[Royal Albert]

thankyou for your reply flelegal. i do appreciate you taking time and explaining things. i have visited my lawyer and accountant who have both advised me to close my Ltd company and open a new one under parents name, and i just be an employee. as i tend to travel abroad, the reason can be, that i did not have time to look after the ltd company as a director.

i have also stated that if maintenence is 15% for my son, i am prepared to pay 20-25% for him, but not to the mother. lawyer has advised me to wait until she files for divorce. in mean time im sorting myself out.

[Bluebird]

Glad someone with some knowledge on this matter posted and gave us answers to questions most of us hope we never have to ask.

Thanks for your input.

[lukemg]

Brilliant fleagal, almost certainly the best informed and most comprehensive response to a complicated discussion every seen on this board !
Urban myth has always totally wrongly suggested you can lose half the house if you move a woman in for 6 months - I know this is garbage. However, I know the co-habitation rules have been looked at/changed but I take it you are still generally ok unless you marry her ?

[glashIFA@Paramount]

[QUOTE=fleagal;323616]That's not strictly true, most lawyers enjoy doing a good job for their client. And a good job, which can cost a lot, can save more than it costs.

The length of marriage has an effect. A short marriage (say 3 years) usually causes the Court to put each party back into the financial position that they were in prior to the marriage. However, the longer the marriage the more likely the chance of splitting the assets 50:50.

This is a little mixed up. The financial needs of your wife will be ordered by the Court or agreed between you and your wife after legal advice. As explained above there can be a claim on you income, from all sources including dividends, but if your wife has her own earning capacity she will be expected to go out and work, child care permitting. The Court has the power to make pension sharing order but it depends upon how long you have been paying into the pension (or pensions), how many of those years were during marriage and how much those pensions are worth.

It is common to ‘jiggle’ with the calculations by paying a lump sum instead of splitting the pension. Typically you will need to find the Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) of the pension – 25% of the CETV is considered the value if it were in cash. If you had a £100k pension you can consider it to be £25k for negotiation purposes.




Not sure on the other bits but i do know about the pensions. As I'm sure you're all aware, pensions are now deemed to be an asset of the marriage and to be considered in divorce proceedings - this includes S2P / SERPS and State Pension benefits.

The length of the marriage is certainly a relevant factor and you do need to obtain a CETV. However, the CETV used to be based on MFR (Minimum Funding Requirements ) if it was an occupational scheme, but is now scheme specific. In other words, each scheme can use different calculations. I guess most of you have your own personal pension arrangements so you'd be looking at a Money Purchase arrangement and in that case the CETV equivalent would simply be the value of the fund. This value is the starting point and it's other "assets" that would determine the "share" that would be lost if pension sharing was the way forward. There's also the options of offset or attachment.

i do a LOT of work with Family Lawyers and the starting point for negotiations has always been 100% of the pensions value I'm afraid.





.

[fleagal]

Brilliant fleagal, almost certainly the best informed and most comprehensive response to a complicated discussion every seen on this board !

Urban myth has always totally wrongly suggested you can lose half the house if you move a woman in for 6 months - I know this is garbage. However, I know the co-habitation rules have been looked at/changed but I take it you are still generally ok unless you marry her ?

A good question there lukemg! I’m glad that nobody has raised the issue of common law marriage which is a myth. There is no such thing. However, the government is looking at bringing protection to cohabitees as a couple can live together just like a married couple but not receive the benefit of financial security whether through death or separation. There is talk of applying similar benefits to couple who have cohabited for 2 years or more. The law is a long way off though.

Of course, the other option for cohabitees is to issue a claim under Section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. If anything, these proceedings can be more expensive than divorce proceedings as documentary evidence is not usually available therefore it comes down to one persons word against the other. Equitable accounting is sometimes used to calculate gains and losses. An expensive process…

E.g. A man moves into a woman’s house and they pool their finances. The man spends some time carrying out improvements to the property which add value. The couple then separate and the man asks for his share of the property. The woman offers him nothing as the house is hers. He says that he paid towards the mortgage therefore he is entitled to half of the increase in equity since cohabitation began. Furthermore, he seeks a percentage (at least half) for the increase in equity occasioned by his improvements to the property. He would succeed in his claim to a large extent. Scary eh?

Not sure on the other bits but i do know about the pensions. As I'm sure you're all aware, pensions are now deemed to be an asset of the marriage and to be considered in divorce proceedings - this includes S2P / SERPS and State Pension benefits.

The length of the marriage is certainly a relevant factor and you do need to obtain a CETV. However, the CETV used to be based on MFR (Minimum Funding Requirements ) if it was an occupational scheme, but is now scheme specific. In other words, each scheme can use different calculations. I guess most of you have your own personal pension arrangements so you'd be looking at a Money Purchase arrangement and in that case the CETV equivalent would simply be the value of the fund. This value is the starting point and it's other "assets" that would determine the "share" that would be lost if pension sharing was the way forward. There's also the options of offset or attachment.

i do a LOT of work with Family Lawyers and the starting point for negotiations has always been 100% of the pensions value I'm afraid.

glash, You clearly have more understanding of the mechanisms of pensions than me but we are talking at cross purposes here. In ancillary relief proceedings (those relating to matrimonial finances) the Court will always look at the 'matrimonial pot' - the net assets held in joint names and the names of each party. Pensions are not added in at the full CETV as the full value of the fund is not realiseable immediately. For negotiation purposes the cash value of a pension is 25% of its CETV.

E.g. A couple has £100k in cash and the husband has a pension with a CETV of £100k. Using the full value of the pension an equal split would be the wife getting the £100k cash and the husband keeps the pension. Case law exists to adjust the value of the pension as described above. An equal split using the 25% rule would mean that the matrimonial assets would be calculated at £125k therefore each party would get £62.5k or the husband would get the pension plus £37.5k.

The main issue here is that a pension may be worth a certain amount but you can’t buy a house with it and you may not last long enough to derive benefit from it. But, *for negotiation purposes* a pension is *viewed* as 25% of its CETV. I’m not suggesting that the pension is worth less than it appears – the reduction is to give parity to the parties when divvying up the assets. There is an interesting account of an appeal case of Martin-Dye here: http://www.manches.com/practices/fam...cle.php?id=118

Thanks for the encouraging comments, I thought I might ne interfering but if the information has been useful then it was worth the effort.

[castoff101]

Just like to agree with the poster above. With my divorce, the full pension CETV was placed into the pot as an asset of the marriage. One pension was an old final-salary pension which I used to off-set some "real" assets. This was agreed at mediation and was written into the consent order by the solicitors.

[barry_abs]

generally, having children will make or break your life.. it takes a lot of strength on boths sides to make it through the early years.. it takes BALLS! a trusting relationship is a must - no skeletons or true colours unexposed.. it IS hell at times, standard.

your baby is just 6 months old, my ex was particularly neurotic / depressed round this point.. women tend to like commitment and compassion.. has she had any? i would definately give marriage councilling a shot, you may regret it otherwise.. i know couples that have bounced back from affairs.

[BrilloPad]

flegal - you are a solicitor aren't you? your reply is very typical of solicitors who prolong and profit from legal disputes. do you work in family law?

having spent alot of time in the last 3 years in the field, I agree with Shakespeare. Henry V. "First lets kill all the lawyers".

But the major issue I have with family law is the failure the implement the 1989 Children Act. The first line says "The interests of the child shall be paramount". Family courts have aligned the interests of the child with that of the mother.

To give one example (out of hundreds which I no doubt you would give to prolong your post) I have a friend who raised a child up to age 4 - his wife worked in a bank. When they split the family courts give sole residency to the wife! She then said "make no financial claim on me and you can see your child".

Unfortunately most men are weak and stupid(like the original poster) and get what they deserve. That is no reason to punish good men.

The reason these cases are not heard is done to the family law secrecy, supposedly to protect the child, but actually to protect the courts. These courts are more suitable to North Korea.

I will forever hold a grudge against the family courts. I dont care what they have done to me but I resent what they did to my children. Should I get some incurable disease(my father got cancer at about my age so its possible) I intend to die in the middle of PRFD and I will not be going alone. I look upon death as an easy way out and I can assure you there will be much pain first.

Anyway, back to work for the sake of the kids.