ONDIVORCE GENERAL AND CONTACT MESSAGEBOARD
[ADD YOUR COMMENTS] [LIST ALL SUBJECTS]
Subject: fdr
Posted By why? on 04-12-2009
can someone also please explain whether or not i could have adjourned the fdr based on non disclosure and unclear and contradicting disclosure provided by h. or am i correct in saying that only h can adjourn the fdr because he is the applicant for finances?
also. my solicitor says that a court would not order maintenance above a certain level. however, if h and i can reach agreement outside of court which is higher than a court can order would this be accepted by the court and allow them to stamp it to make it legal if we do not go in front of judge at final hearing. ie: if agreed between us without going to third trial?
Follow up comments
Added By Simes 2p on 04-12-2009
Why, the whole point is that if his non disclosure continues, he will lose.
Your Barrister will/should say:
Based on the figures supplied he should pay £500K
Based on the figures we estimate according to the discrepencies in his disclosure, that figure would be £750K
But his TRUE worth is unknown because of his non disclosure, and we suggest that a figure of £1.5Million is realistic.
The Judge will then look to your ex for some basic facts. If not supplied, and he can't show otherwise, you will get the £1.5Million Even if he does supply it at that point, it is likely to be a higher figure than if he disclosed it now.
What you need to do, and I know that you don't listen so its all a waste of time but others reading might learn from your mistakes, is STOP WORRYING ABOUT WHAT HE IS DOING AND WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN ISSUES. IF HE IS GOING TO BUY A BIGGER HOUSE THEN SO F(*^%ING WHAT
Added By why? on 04-12-2009
ok simes. so basically you are telling me that we can still ask for this information despite going past the fdr? if so, good. thats a relief.
can you tell me. from the information he does supply, are we allowed to ask questions of it despite those questions not forming part of the original questionnaire from the first hearing? eg: credit card statements show that you are spending excessively and meeting the payments in full comfortably - can you explain where the money is coming from to meet such expenditure?
would this be reasonable. im assuming it is but need to know when its worth pushing for an answer in the long term.
Added By Simes 2p on 04-12-2009
Why, no, at the final hearing both of you will be cross examined. So your Barrister will ask him, on your statement page 3 it shows a payment of £10,000. What was it for. Where did the asset go. Where did the money come from. Why did you spend £10,000 on that holiday when the mother is struggling to put food on the table. Don't you care about your children. What sort of a heartless bastard are you.
Something along those lines. Cross examination is the greatest of fun!
Added By why? on 04-12-2009
or indeed. why did you spend almost £100,000 on holidays and jewellery when that could have gone towards clearing the mortgage of the family home and allowed your children to remain in the family home. my sentiments entirely.
Added By Kat007 on 05-12-2009
I know this is really stressful for you why? as it is your future at stake here. But listen to Simes he know's what he is doing and has helped many people on here and in the real world. Focus on what you and the kids need from your ex.
Yes he will not fully disclose same as mine didn't but that is why you have a barrister to filter through his drivel and work things out and hopefully get the outcome you require that's why you pay her so much money.
When you have the final hearing just sit back and watch her question your ex because he will squirm in his seat as he will not want to answer but at that point he will have no choice and if he lies and it is later found out he can get in trouble for committing purjury and offence punishable by prison.
I loved watching my ex being crossed examined a coupe of weeks ago not only by my barrister but by the judge too, he didn't do too well they were both women and he hates women in authourity so to seem his face when he was found out was priceless and embarassing.
Eye's on the prize (meaning what you need regarding financial settlement)
XXXXXX
Added By why? on 05-12-2009
hi kat,
not being funny here but i get no pleasure at all in any of this. seeing him squirm etc doesn't do anything for me personally. i dont want to go to a third trial. i want us to continue to negotiate between now and then and hopefully not have to go to THIRD trial.
unfortunately it looks like this is the only way we will get the answers to the questions regarding actual money coming in.however, im not actually too bothered about getting the answers or the disclosure personally, i just want him to provide us with what i am looking for and if he is happy to do this then there will be noneed for a third trial. however, based on figures and information that his solicitor has it is unlikely to go as high as i would like. ie: if he did agree to settle on my terms he would then be admitting that there must be more income than he is admitting, other wise he could not agree.
anyway, i am working on all the options and sure that after a few weeks we may be able to consider something. maybe i will need to contact him directly. i have been told by my solicitor that it is unlikely that a judge would order him to pay the maintenance i am looking for but surely if he and i agree between ourselves then the court just stamps its approval. ie: if it doesn't go to a judge/third trial, then its between us is it not? ie: he knows he has more income, i know it and he knows we know it, so he may be happy to agree. ie: the judge will nothave to orderit but rather accept it in form of consent order?
Added By EnglishRose on 05-12-2009
If you agree things between you they can be agreed. I paid my ex 60% of assets and our agreement says whoever they live with supports the chidlren (they are with me 365 days a year not my choice). The court rubber stamped all that - we both had lawyers, no hearings. we had no form es - we were living together had everything in joint accounts and both had 100% understanding and knowledge of the other's income assets tax returns pensions, shares how any normal intelligent sensible couples should always organise their marriage. So many women don't seem to know basic things like what companies their husband has, what he earns, what's a pension. I think if they spend a third of the money they waste on stupid expensive weddings and wedding dresses on a 6 week financial and tax course they would do a lot better within marriage.
Added By Owl1 on 05-12-2009
Why, if your solicitor has told you it is unlikely that a Judge will order the maintenance you are looking for then listen to that and take it on board.
Your solicitor will have looked at the figures provided, considered how much non-disclosure they can expose and come to her opinion based on an objective assessment.
What she is telling you is that you may have to lower your expectations.
Your ex's solicitor will be looking at the same things and giving your ex objective advice too on the effect of non-disclosure and the likely level of maintenance to be ordered. No doubt it will align with what your solicitor is telling you.
So it is unlikely you will reach an agreement with your ex out of Court for an increased amount. He has not shown any interest to date in coming to a negotiated settlement with you to give you the amount you want. If that was the case it would have all settled at the FDR. The reality is that you will have to decrease the amount you are wanting to receive and he will have to increase the amount he is wanting to pay to come to a negotiated settlement.
Given that neither of you will want to do that you just need to go through the process.
Added By why? on 05-12-2009
thanks owl. i will ask my solicitor and barrister whether they think the additional income, non disclosure etc will make a difference. everyone is working to the figures provided. also, there's my shares which have to account for something as he will then receive 50% of the dividends instead of just 25%. has to account for something?
er, i agree with you regarding couples within marriages should know what the income is etc etc. finance was one of the reasons for our break up. its very easy to say what you say. its not so easy if you live with someone who keeps information from you, gives suspicious explanations and is a compulsive liar. its not always about the woman (or man) being stupid or not wise or sensible etc. its sometimes about control and power from the other person.
Added By Owl1 on 06-12-2009
Why I should add that the key bit of information that it would seem everyone has been waiting for is the business valuation. As your legal team had quite rightly advised you not to make any offers until they had that information and also the information from the forensic accountant this was very unlikely to settle at the FDR.
Now that your legal team have that information they can analyse it and probably give you more advice. It may be that they will have enough information to put forward an offer that is based on actual values and facts to your h prior to the final hearing. You need to remember too that his side will have this and his team will be analying it as well.
Where you are is one step ahead in the queue so this is likely to settled by the middle of next year. If the FDR had been adjourned it would have taken longer.
Added By EnglishRose on 06-12-2009
Yes, we married young, always had everything in joint names, I did our tax returns, we did everything like business projects together, no secrets. Not everyone is like that.
So you now have a valuation for the business but you only own 25% of it snad 25% of a buysiness is not worth 25% of the 100% it is worth as no one wants to buy a 25% stake in a minority business. In fact it is often worthless and the owner can ensure no dividends are paid but high salaries to himself unless you had the foresight when married to insiste on a shareholders' agreement in writing which you and he signed. People should never take shares without those but they prefer to pay lawyers a fortune when things go wrong than for 2 or 3 hours of their time to draw them up in the first place.
Added By why? on 06-12-2009
hi er.
yes we do have a sharholders agreement. my shareholding does have a value, however does not mean that if h got my shares that he would be able to sell them for the value applied. almost all profits in the businesses are paid straight out in dividends and the businesses have been valued based on sustainable dividends.
my solicitor has not commented at all on the business valuations oron the shareholders agreement. i dont know why or if she is even reading it!i hope she is since she was insistent on waiting for the valuation in first place. i just wish she would inform me what was happening.
Added By Owl1 on 06-12-2009
Why, It will take your sol some time to analyse the business valuations and I would not expect her to be giving you a definitive opinion on what they mean for a couple of weeks yet.
The shareholders agreement will set out the mechanism if one shareholder wishes to exist the business. In a small closed company they usually set out that the existing shareholders have pre-emptive rights to purchase those shares and that the shares are transferred at an agreed value. It will then have a clause that sets out the process for determining the agreed value, usually a valuation.
However the difficulty is if none of the existing shareholders take the option to buy out your shares at the agreed value a purchaser has to be found. If there is no purchaser then the shares at really no value.
Added By Owl1 on 06-12-2009
"If there is no purchaser then the shares at really no value." That should be "have" no value.
Why about the shares being valued based on sustainable dividends. If your h was buying your share he will be able to take more in dividends. The issue with that for him will be up until now your family unit has taken just that value out in dividends, its all gone into the same pot. He may not see any value in purchasing your shares at that value to get given an increased dividend which he then has to pay out to you as SM. He really gets no value and his shares will have limited resale value to boot.
Added By why? on 06-12-2009
thats useful advice owl thanks. i have tried to get this straight in my head.my argument was that he would now get 50% of those dividends instead of just 25% and my argument on top of that is that had i not had any shares iwould have got sm in any case and somy shares should account for something over and above. i realise i do not have a good head for al this stuff and i do tend to see things as black and white. he is getting my dividends and so i am guessing that the income they are using to calculate my sm will be based on the dividendas well as his salary although no one as yet has told me if this is so.
its the lack of information that i find difficult to deal with and im not always sure what i should be asking.
Added By Owl1 on 07-12-2009
Why, your SM payment will be based on his income and your need. If you are not being paid the dividends as you have transferred your shares then your income goes down and thus your need will increase. But your need can only be met relative to your h's income.
If he gets paid increased dividends based a 50% not 25% share then yes he has an increased income to cover your increased need. But there is no saying you would automatically have got the same level of SM paid to you if you didn't have shares you could transfer. Thats because they would be calculating his ability to pay on a lesser income.
In a way its just robbing Peter to pay Paul. You are decreasing your income increasing your need and he is increasing his income which increases his ability to meet your increased need due to your decreased income.
Added By why? on 07-12-2009
yes i understand. i find it annoying however that he states he will now pay a higher rate of tax which he and i know is not true as he will simply pay half his income to his new wife as he has always done with me in order to avoid high rate tax.
| 
