What do you think would be fair?

Hi everyone,
I have done some long complex posts about this, but I am going to try to simplify the situation by going back to 2004 and asking you what you think would have been fair back then, and what you think the judge would have been likely to have awarded had my husbands ex not given perjured testimony on her form e and in court (discovered ironically through a leave to remove case where she has inadvertantly admitted this in her statement, backed up by her then boyfriend now husband).

Ok here we go.

She was working full time, earning about £1500 per month. She was claiming £548 in child tax credit, and got child benefit of about £170 per month. She was living in the family home worth about £230,000, with a mortgage of £95,000. There was also an endowment policy worth approximately £8,000 as of the day of the divorce, and joint debts unfortunately in my husbands name, of £16,000. My husband at that time was unable to work because of depression and stress related psoriasis, a debilitating skin condition. He was living with his mum and dad in their flat, and visits with the children (when his ex rarely allowed him to have them, finally resolved by a court contact order in July 2004) had to take place there. His ex was living and being supported by her boyfriend of 2 years. He worked as a surveyor in London and was earning £80,000 per year and also owned a property worth £250,000 in Surrey. They shared their time between the 2 properties, hers during the week and his at weekends. My ex had no savings and all the money he had was tied up in the house (it did indeed take him a further 3 years after the divorce to buy a flat, and then only because his not wealthy parents lent him 30k to do so). Ok now this is my question. ­base­d on this factual scenario, what do you think the judge would have ordered regarding division of assets? What acutally happened because she claimed to be single and unsupported at this time, was that the judge ordered my husbands ex to give a sum of money to my husband the equivelant at that time of 30% of the equity of the house. He also had to sign the endowment policy to her, and he was left with the debt as it was in his name, despite the fact he had taken it out to help pay debts in her sole name. How much (if at all), do you think the truth would have altered this outcome. All opinions will be gratefully recieved, and could prove very helpful.

Thanks

You have missed out important bits of information - his potential income, the spouse's respective ages, the duration of the relationship, the number of children and the children's ages. Also were there any pensions?

I'm not convinced that disclosure of the co-habitation would have made a substantial difference to the settlement of capital. Co-habitants cannot make financial claims against each other and the court would want to ensure that the children didn't suffer undue hardship if the relationship failed. The wife had the main responsibility for housing the children, possibly for a good few years, whilst the husband had earning potential when he recovered.

It would be a different matter if evidence came to light that at the time of the settlement the intention to marry wasn't disclosed or if SM payments were to be made. A cohabitant's contribution to the living expenses of their household would have reduced the wife's living costs and therefore her "need" of SM. Otherwise cohabiting often doesn't make as much difference as people think.

I'm not a solicitor, your partner would need to run the documents past a lawyer for a legal opinion to see if they can pick up on anything.

Hi Fiona, thanks for your reply. His potential income was about £25,000 if he got into work again. As I say she was earning a full time salary working for her father who had his own business. The relationship had been ongoing for 2 years, and the children were aged almost 5 and 9 at the time of the divorce. There were no pensions between them. In the leave to remove case she said her boyfriend at the time began taking emotional, social and financial responsibility for her and the children from early 2003, or in effect a whole year before the divorce. He confirmed this in his statement. When my husband queried this discrepency in his statement, she did not change her dates. He retrieved the divorce file and he can see scrutinising her bank statements that she was not paying the mortgage, the gas/electric bill herself, so he now knows she was indeed being supported by somebody. I have no idea how you would ever prove someone had hidden the intention to marry, but they do acknowledge in their statements that it was a serious relationship from the outset (and that it began 6 weeks after she separated from my husband). So in your opinion, the fact she did not disclose this relationship with a wealthy partner, would have had no bearing on the division of assets because the judge would have worried that one day they may have split up. That seems harsh, but I understand what you are saying.