My advice to anyone still going through the horse dealing would be not to spend too much money on the arguments between solicitors at the start.they love racking up a bill.
If you are poles apart on what you think is fair.Instruct your solicitor to get it into court don't spend money on their petty point scoring squabbles.Use them as atool to get it into court pay the price argue the point and see ultimately what the judge will decide.

Amanda's approach is admirable ... but I am afraid it is all too rare. So much mystery surrounds the process and, when you first see a solicitor you are usually in no fit state to understand anything very much - most people I imagine assume their solicitor is doing the best for them.

What is lacking is a very clear explanation of how the finances are worked out - tailored, of course, to the individual circumstances insofar as they are known at the outset - and adjusted as more information becomes available. This is what wiki is able to give. I would also want to see every solicitor opening lines of communication with the other side - as Amanda has outlined - rather than indulging in silly and expensive tit for tat arguments via letter.

I believe the first stop when looking at the finances is to take a look at the realistic needs of both parties ... and then try to work out if the assets pot is sufficient to meet them. It frequently is not. That point needs to underline every bit of the ongoing negotiations ... especially where children are involved. Creative thinking needs to be applied - together with a clear explannation of the workings out so both paries understand what is being asked for - and why.

A lot of time and money is spent on debating finer points of conduct - which matter a lot to the individual but have no relevance in law. The same applies to contributions which do not appear to be relevant UNLESS there is more than enough money to meet both parties' needs.

I do not consider myself to be a stupid person. I am not financially inept. My start point was always he has a pension worth about the same as the house; he is housed now .. so why doesn't he keep the pension and I keep the house? The only matters then outstanding were a couple of endowments and the childrens savings (in my name).

My then solicitor's view was that stbx should get virtually nothing - he was looking at say £20-30k from the cash pot.
He estimated my costs to be 3-5k. That was Dec 06. The other side failed to submit form E for months and then he got a new vulture solicitor who communicated only in offensive and inflammatory terms - often up to three letters a day. I asked him face to face to sit down and talk it through to avoid these ridiculous costs - money which wd have been better spent on the kids. But it seemed he preferred to rely on his solicitors 'judgement'.

By March 08 we were finally at FDR - having endured much mudslinging and demands for a quarter of a million pounds that simply did not exist. My costs at this stage were circa 15k, his about 8k (legal aid). By now I had been passed to another solicitor at the firm who seemed to enjoy the sparring with his oppo. I did not feel any of it was necessary and the costs were terrifying. His behaviour was exactly what you do not need in this situation.

Stbx was offered the endowment policy - equivalent of just less than 20% of the total cash tied up in the house. He turned it down and it was off to Final Hearing.

By now I had "hadenough" of my solicitor - there is a thread on here called "is my solicitor an a**e" - which kind of sums up how I was feeling at the time.

At this stage I was "rescued" by Amanda ... who reassured me I was not going mad, my offers had been reasonable ... but she too could get no sense out of the other side.

Eventually at FH STBX was awarded the endowment policy and his pension - same as at FDR. He could have had this months ago - if his solicitor had negotiated rather than sending out sprays of vitriol - and we would both have been far better off financially. It cost nearly 50k between us for him to be awarded just over 50k's worth of policy.

We could have spent 5k each - my original sol's max estimate ... and split the policy between us .... giving him .. errrrr .. 20-30k.

Work that one out ....

Could I have done anything differently?

The answer is probably yes - but hindsight is a wonderful thing - and Wiki did not exist when this started - although I am very, very glad I found it when I did.

Hadenoughnow

This is exactly the position we are faced with. My partner has put fair, reasonable offers on the table time and time again but it makes no difference to his STBX - She wants the lot and will do all she can to get it . My partners solicitor actually turned to him and said that she would have instructed his STBX to accept his last offer if she was representing her. We are of the opinion now that her solicitor is driving her onwards towards the FDR thinking she has a good chance of taking the lot?? Its madness as the amount they have probably spent between them in solicitors fees is almost as much as the amount they are disputing ?? It seems like madness to me and there is no getting through to her either

my husband has just had similar experiences that have been posted here with regards to unreasonable demands. The ex's demands were unreasonable in that she never and still to date has never stated what she wanted, apart from from e where every box was ticked.we personally think she wanted half of todays value (divorce and settlement reached 7 years ago so this was a second bite of the cherry)


It has taken a tough talking barrister on the other side to tell his client what the 'crack' is as she clearly wouldnt listen to the sols. We were all looking at a 3 day final hearing next week with all the expense to go with it.

I personally think that demands demonstrate the greed of the person and serve to remind why you divorced them in the first place. it does damage their case as who will take them seriously. not once have her sols put her case forward; so entrenched was her position she made it impossible for her sols to act for her.

It turns out today that a settlement has been reached.

She got £15k to go away and never to darken our door again. legal bills for us £8k and her £8k. she'll now be able to pay back the child tax credit that she fraudulently claimed for 2 years. she'd have got away with still claiming if she hadn't gone down form e route. we also know that the high life she leads is all paid for on credit card. that she squandered all the money she got first time round.

Theres a slight air of disappointment in that she wont be crossed examined about all her lies, and believe me there were many.

It would have been interesting to get the judges take on this one and maybe get some answers to the original question posted. Like many others on here we've lived and breathed this for many months, and have many unanswered questions.

Bitter, jealous and twisted people seem to think they can use this system (AR) to get revenge. Who said this was all about fairness?

Millie