|
I want to add to this site's "library" of experiences, to help people understand what might be in front of them if they get to the stage of a Final Hearing. I don't have any need to go into the whys and wherefores of how we got here. However, in broad terms, we are talking about a 26 yr marriage, a £700,000 house minus a £200,000 mortgage, £50,000 legal bills between us, £100,000 savings, endowments etc, and £500,000 pension pot.
We had our final hearing yesterday. It was a truly horrible day - in fact, I've been saying repeatedly that, if you wanted to design a system to make two people hate each other, this is the system you would design.
We arrived in the court building at about 9am and took over two of the court offices where we could talk to our solicitors and barristers. My barrister, and presumably her barrister, spent time clarifying the finances as they currently stand, and recommending whether to make any sort of offer. Now, my perspective is that, while I have a significantly higher salary at present, the reason her's is lower is because she and we chose for her to do different things. To suggest that the only difference over 25 years of working and family life is the salary tomorrow is very blinkered. Yes, I have been out working, but she has had the pleasure and priviledge and fun of bringing up our children. It hasn't all been fun for her, but it hasn't all been self sacrifice. It certainly hasn't been easy, and essentially all the good things that she has had and the equity that she is drawing on now are a reflection of my work day in and day out for all my adult life. And my work has been very unpleasant for me for much of that time. I realise that other people can interpret that situation quite differently.
Anyway, I was prepared to offer over 50% in order to ensure a clean break. She would have been in the position to have a £300,000 mortgage free house, a £250000 pension pot, and has just got a £34,000 job. We made a "without prejudice" offer of around £40,000 - 50,000 - which, if you do the maths, means that she walks away with about £100K more than me. She was looking at £120K to achieve a clean break. So we went into court.
The process then was that her barrister opened proceedings and took about 40 minutes setting out her case. I don't recall whether my barrister had a piece to say or not. Her barrister then "examined" her - asking her questions that she could use to clarify her position. I guess he sought to pick up issues that he felt we would use, and also to ask her to justify why her figures came out the way they did. My barrister then "cross-examined" her. Let's say that I wouldn't have wanted to be on the receiving end. It is a pretty brutal process.
I guess for the purpose of this site it is worth describing how my wife handled herself, as a guide to how not to do it! She sat there looking very hard, angry and bitter - OK, may not have been something she may have had too much control over, although knowing her I suspect she could have chosen differently. She sat with her arms tightly folded and never or virtually never made eye contact with the person questionning her. It just looked rude, and the tone of her responses often seemed to suggest "Who the hell do you think you are to be asking me such questions?". A couple of times her own team even seemed to look awkward. The content of her answers was very evasive, and at times downright dishonest, and provably so. I have no idea whether her relationship is an on-going issue, and, as he isn't likely to make any financial contribution, I don't care one way or the other. So why lie??? She also didn't bring up to date financial information and claimed that she hadn't been told to do so, when I know that our team had requested it repeatedly. It just looks as though she has something to hide. She kept saying "Don't know" "Can't remember" "Don't understand". My barrister kept saying "Mrs..., Do try to help us here".
There was a break for lunch and then we resumed afterwards. In the end, she just did not give the court the impression of being a credible witness.
My turn followed. My barrister asked me questions which I answered as straightforwardly as possible. I guess the main thrust of my barrister's questions would have been on my views of my wife's submissions, while the "cross examination" would be on her view of my submission. Inevitably in the process of going through this, and in producing innumerable documents, answers may change, and some answers have to be conjured out of thin air, especially in future expenditure requirements. Just how much do I think I will spend on holidays next year? Well, it depends how much I'm left with, doesn't it?! So there were a few points where I could be challenged, but I just tried to remain straightforward and clear and credible. I doubt that anyone gets to court without the barrister having something they can use to make life uncomfortable.
What I found most difficult was when the barrister was saying "so she has an income of £34000 and you have a significantly higher income and you propose that you should keep your income and not give her anymore. How is that fair?" I wish I had been more prepared and more robust and have said that it was fair because she has had the advantage of my income and the choices that it has enabled her to make over 26 yrs, that she is walking away with over half a million between assets and pensions, and that I will be working to earn that money in the future. I did say something like that, but I could have been more convincing. However, I remained polite, accurate, consistent and honest. I was very glad that I had taken that view the whole way through, because it was a hell of a lot easier than if I had been lying and having holes picked in my evidence.
My wife is very articulate (usually) and I'm sure had convinced her team that they were going to be dealing with a psychologically damaged ogre. Instead I think they found themselves feeling that they were there to defend the indefensible.
Unfortunately, we wound up the cross examination at 4:15 and the judge had to leave by 4:30 so there wasn't time for submissions by counsel. What has been agreed is that they will make written submissions to the judge within one week, and can look at each other's submissions so that they can comment on it, and the judge, I think, will hand down his judgement in a further week. Irritating, and difficult as I am still haemorrhaging money to support her house, mortgage, endowments - etc - everthing but internet and phone - plus maintenance. But we are nearly there.
Summary?: A horrible process, to be avoided at nearly all costs. No-one will come out of it looking good, and it will make the future - like children's weddings and grandchildren etc - all the harder. Be open and honest and well prepared. Don't dick around with the barristers - you're on their turf, and they are paid to be like Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Unless you have something really big to hide, don't lose your credibility as a witness. If you are on firm ground, then stand your ground but make sure you understand why that is your position. And the court and barristers are just doing their job. The other side isn't paying their barrister to make you feel good.
Then go out to the pub with your friends, and/ or book a holiday to look after yourself.
|
Forum 
View my user profile 
