Ex wants share of property, solely in my name, mortgage solel;y paid by me and solely in my name also.

Jointly accrued credit card debts, but solely in my name, ex concedes should belong to me.

Ex wants share of my house, bought before marriage, but wants me to not have share of any of his pension value accrued after separation.

Is it just me, or is something not right here?

Perhaps it IS just me then! Must be finally going mad!

I think you have had no replies because everyone thought it was a rhetorical question!

Lots of things seem unfair and unjust in the divorce process but there's nothing much that can be done about it in individual circumstances...

Sorry - believe me I really do understand your frustration and wish you good luck.

It would help if you confined the question to one thread: I've answered this same thing in your other thread here:
http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/Divorce-Forum/Property-and-Mortgages/53820-assets-brought-into- marriage.html#53992

In many marriages; either party contributes more; as I see that you have done. What were the debts for? for your sole use / or both parties?

In divorce there's a matrimonial 'pot' to be divided; and it doesn't always seem fair to the person that contributed the asset in the first place.

What share of the property does he want or expect?

Sorry Sera-

Not quite got the protocol of doing this right, yet. Thought, anyway, I was asking two separate things. This thread is about who owes what and other thread you refer to was specifically about pre marital property assets being excluded.obviously not expressing things clearly.

No need to apologise! I just didn't want you to think your post was ignored.

OK: As I understand it, the debt depends on what the money was used for: Mike is good at explaining this! (I think he already did this morning?)
He explained that if say you borrowed to buy a Piano; and only the husband used it, then that could be perceived as having been his debt; however; if a mother borrows for the welfare of the children (say in the absence of the fathers contribution) then that could be perceived as a 'joint' debt.

I was just noting that you have this way of assuming all debt is yours etc. I'm trying to help out by pointing out how things could be split. ie: a court could award you a higher percentage to repay this debt; or reduce his claim if it was for his usage.

I most definitely do not assume that all debt is mine! That is the whole point- I am certain that he should pay half the debts( which are in my name) because they were for mutual benefit, which statements will show. It is the other side who are trying to wriggle ouy of this.
I seem to be going in circles about this, and dont know how to put my queries any more clearly, but each post seems to be misunderstood.

Thanks anyway.