Ruling in the family court. Daughter granted 70% of family home and 20% of ex-husband's pension. She has to sell on her daughter's (now 11)18th birthday and had to agree to indemnify the respondent against all mortgage liability and his mortgage covenants with respect to the mortgage.
Her son (13) has a serious disability and will probably need continuing care. The likelihood of his independence is compromised.
Daughter's position statement was apparently not read by the judge.
Daughter is self-employed on a low income.
The details of being under-funded by her ex were not revealed.
She could not afford to be represented but he was represented by a barrister who presented a case full of errors. Our daughter was told not to interrupt when she challenged this
Order was made on 23/10/14
House has been valued at £375,000
£132,000 outstanding on mortgage.
Son's disability is Brittle Bone disease - he has had more than 30 fractures.
Decree absoloute not yet signed so still technically man and wife.
Husband's income is £2526 per month net.
Our daughter has to work as part-time gardener. Her income with maintenance and credits is £1654 per month. From this she has to pay mortgage and support family for most of the time.
Our key grievances:
Dauhgter given only 10 minutes to read "Without prejudice note" prepared by husband's barrister. This was full of errors(lies).
In court when daughter challenged these errors she was told not to interrupt.
Husband has been indemnified against all mortgage liability.
She felt that she signed under duress as told the final jury outcome could be worse.
NB This is a "Needs Case"
Did you receive the information I sent about one hour ago?