Reply to: War Chest and divorce

[speling bee]

Hehe. If he'd been a true gent, he'd have offered.

Offered? Didn't you brink your bike lock?

[mudskipper]

You shouldn't let elderly gents push your bike up the hill.

Hehe. If he'd been a true gent, he'd have offered.

[speling bee]

Bitch from Hell?

BFH to me is the large hill at Ipsden between Wallingford and Reading. Attempted it on Saturday with a pannier full of text books and failed. Embarrassingly, an older gentleman jogged past me pushing my bike.

You shouldn't let elderly gents push your bike up the hill.

[mudskipper]

Big Fat Harlot?

Bitch from Hell?

BFH to me is the large hill at Ipsden between Wallingford and Reading. Attempted it on Saturday with a pannier full of text books and failed. Embarrassingly, an older gentleman jogged past me pushing my bike.

[Mich the Tester]

+1. I often find that love and hate are very close together. These days I am totally ambivalent toward my ex - my days of calling her the BFH are over.

Big Fat Harlot?

[BrilloPad]

When you are angry with someone, you see things differently, money is just another weapon.

That's why I say, you need to sort out your anger first, money is not the problem.

+1. I often find that love and hate are very close together. These days I am totally ambivalent toward my ex - my days of calling her the BFH are over.

Except to wind up the twins that is! Occasionally I hurl a volley of insults about her while the twins are listening. They get upset. I laugh at them. Suckers!

[alreadypacked]

Ah that makes more sense, seems fair when explained.

Nice move, I can see why you might be a little angry with him.

As you say lucky escape.

When you are angry with someone, you see things differently, money is just another weapon.

That's why I say, you need to sort out your anger first, money is not the problem.

[BrilloPad]

You see this is what happens when you give women the vote.

A bigger issue is the 1969 divorce act which went as badly wrong the other way as the previous law.

The 1989 Children Act corrected this - but was ignored by the family courts.

Things are getting better now - mostly due to younger judges with a higher percentage of women. Its the older judges, composed mostly of men, who are the issue.

The younger ones understand that women don't just look after kids - they work too.

[vetran]

The contract we signed, when the house was sold I would get the 20% of value as I invested 20%. The bank was paid, then the balance was split 50 - 50.

As it turned out this meant he got all the money he paid in back, but no profit. He saw all the money I got as profit.

What he didn't see was, if I had not put the money down and got the loan, we would be renting and he would have got none of his money back.

But he was very sweet about ending things, I went to stay with a friend for a few days (we were fighting too much) he changed the locks. Then he moved his new gf and her 2 kids in, class.

Lucky I didn't marry him.

Ah that makes more sense, seems fair when explained.

Nice move, I can see why you might be a little angry with him.

As you say lucky escape.

[eek]

[QUOTE=Scoi;1632715]

/QUOTE]


But, apparently, in a minority of cases, things can be argued in court which is what i'm trying to avoid. We have to give full and frank disclosure of finances and i'm concerned that seeing a nice war chest will spur her on for a long drawn out and expensive fight only for both of us to walk out with a big legal bill which will probably be the size of said war chest.

Nah, it would be bigger than that and include whatever you add to it over the period of the fight.

My advice would be to try and find out what she wants (in £££) to walk away, give her it and get on with your life.

[Scoi]

My lawyers advice was that as it's classed as a short marriage, the baseline of any settlement is that we are returned to where we started and any addition to the joint possessions are split evenly during the marriage. Which will be pretty much sod all as everything we earned was spent on the wedding and honeymoon. Any income post separation (date needs to be proved) should be ignored. Perfect scenario for me.

But, apparently, in a minority of cases, things can be argued in court which is what i'm trying to avoid. We have to give full and frank disclosure of finances and i'm concerned that seeing a nice war chest will spur her on for a long drawn out and expensive fight only for both of us to walk out with a big legal bill which will probably be the size of said war chest.

[BlasterBates]

You see this is what happens when you give women the vote.

[alreadypacked]

can't imagine why.

The contract we signed, when the house was sold I would get the 20% of value as I invested 20%. The bank was paid, then the balance was split 50 - 50.

As it turned out this meant he got all the money he paid in back, but no profit. He saw all the money I got as profit.

What he didn't see was, if I had not put the money down and got the loan, we would be renting and he would have got none of his money back.

But he was very sweet about ending things, I went to stay with a friend for a few days (we were fighting too much) he changed the locks. Then he moved his new gf and her 2 kids in, class.

Lucky I didn't marry him.

[vetran]

he paid the mortage I paid all the other bills. When we split he wanted to keep all the profit from the house as he paid the mortage.

He got his money back, but I got the rest of the money after the sale, he was not happy.

can't imagine why.

[IR35FanClub]

Take it out of the company, hide it under several mattresses and say that you spent on fine wines and expensive restaurants.

She can't take what isn't there.

Don't do that - my wife argued in court that I'd gone on a spending spree and was trying to get me to put the money back in the pot which was to be divided in two (the judge can do that!). Thankfully HE decided that setting up a new home, ie. TV, PS3, kitchen appliances and furniture was a legitimate "spending spree" other wise I'd ha been down several grand. The annoying thinkg is - nearly 1/3 the £20k i spent in the first 6 months after leaving was maintenance and bills I paid her, which I later found out I didn't have to bother with - as she earns enough to look after herself. All I need to pay is child maintenance! :-)

As regards to the original question - yes the company funds can be classed as part of the assets under consideration. They were in my case - though in the end they were mutually agreed to be ignored - as my wife had a great big public sector pension pot I could have asked to take half of. Via the solicitor I got her to see sense that we should treat these two assets as "personal" and stop any more bad feelings of robbery building up. What you are entitled to isn't always the best option. You solicitor doesn't seem to be giving you good advice here. Are they at least telling you the possible outcomes?

What I'm still really pissed off at is she didn't give me back a musical keyboard I'd had since I was 17! Silly really - but I saved up £200 to buy it back then which was a lot of money.

I'll pass on the advice a colleague gave to me but ignored... go round with a van and take what you want not long after leaving or you will never get it back. You may think things are amicable but once the lawyers get involved it becomes a counting game and possession is 100% of what matters. The fact stuff has a value is more or less irrelevant - if the wife has it - she gets to decide whether to keep it. The alternative is to pay the solicitor to fight for each item - which isn't worth the cost.

My personal advice - is try and settle out of court, my two most expensive months ever - by the time barristers start getting dragged in too - you'll be adding several thousand to the bill.