I bought the house which became the matrimonial home on my own, on the strength of my earnings, my money for the deposit and my business reputation (as a freelance technical/legal translator and editor/translator in the Civil Service). My then husband was a penniless artist, ambitious but not keen to work for money. For 34 years I was the sole breadwinner. He worked for 6 months part-time as an art technician in a school but even that meant the money was 'his'. He never wanted to contribute to the family finances and behaved like a gentleman, taking the dog out and listening to music while he painted. He complained in the divorce court at having to come down at a set time for lunch (Since I had to prepare the food and serve and I only had one hour for lunch, that is a bit galling). He did not allow me time off when I had my second child (I was in hospital for the 1st and 3rd so I had time off then, and all he wanted was for me to work, work, work. When the children (3) were small I paid for au-pairs so I cooked and did the chores with the au-pair. I worked full-time with a full-time secretary. When child 3 died I was no longer 'needing an au-pair' so that was the end of any help for me. I had added his name to the mortgage five months after I had bought the house to protect our first child who was a baby. The solicitor added his name to the deeds but we were to be 'beneficial joint tenants in law and in equity'. The solicitor knew at the time that a divorce was a possibility and meant to protect me. I told my husband that if I died the insurance would cover the house and he would be able to have a source of income but in case of divorce he was to have nothing. All the papers I got recently from the Land Registry are flawed (about the initial purchase and the sale ordered by the Court) and none of the 4 unities of ownership have ever been there. He left for a 'better meal ticket' when my health had deteriorated. The whole divorce was handled by the woman who wanted to marry him and have my house, my dog and my furniture. I was evicted from my home and my identity was stolen by that woman after two burglaries during the night when the things stolen were my bank cards & ID papers and the interest focussed on my filing cabinets. I am sure I have been the victim of a conspiracy to defraud with perjury in documents submitted to the Court. Can anybody advise what I can do?
There was a townhouse in London which I got valuations for in the week following the Court Order (final hearing of the ancillary relief proceedings - 31.7.2008) at £1 ,100,000.00, £1,150,000.00. I also found buyers at £1,200,000.00 and advised the solicitors in Yorkshire (appointed by the court) of these buyers. Nothing came of that. The house was sold in December 2008 for £850,000.00 to 'cash-rich buyers' in view of the need to act promptly. The estate agent concerned had written to me in 2007 giving a valuation of £950,000.00. Those 'buyers' have since got a mortgage, the amount of which does not appear on the Land Registry papers. (I think they have had 'a sandwich lease').
My house in France. I inherited half from my Mother and bought my brother's share in 1998. It has never been joint property but a paper submitted to the Court purported to come from estate agents and spoke of 'the owners'. No estate agent ever visited the house... It was valued at £160,000.00 in the proceedings. There is no evidence on the deeds and documents of my ex-husband having had anything to do with buying my brother off.
Two plots of land in the Dordogne. 6,000 sq m in total. One was given to me by my mother whilst she was alive and the other one I bought to enlarge the land. I included my then husband in the purchase but he did not contribute financially. This the court order said should revert to me but I have not given effect to that yet. Not great value and nothing built there. Planning permission might be problematic.
I got £220,000.00 from the sale of my house and kept the house in France. But since he took all the 'body of work' (paintings) he had worked on whilst I housed and fed him for 34 years, he ruined my reputation by unsubstantiated allegations in the divorce court, left to live with the other woman and her husband in their matrimonial home, I think I was/am entitled to a lot more. I had to get a bridging loan to buy the flat where I am living now (and then got Equity Release to repay it).
There was furniture in the house which was cleared before the sale and put into storage whilst I was in hospital. Later on, it went missing from the storage place but I don't think it was 'lost'. The same people who had put it in storage collected it and I was the idiot who had paid the storage charges.
I don't think he was entitled to anything. Leaving me when I needed medical help was a disgrace. Less than 24 hours' notice of his intention was also a disgrace. But because I say that he was under the undue influence of the 'other woman' (an ex-professor in neuropharmacology specializing in 'mind-altering drugs') people think that I am deluded. I am not deluded. I can tell that the divorce was only a means to an end: getting a replacement husband and getting the ex-wife to foot the bill for what she had expended up to the divorce - £57,000.00 according to the statement to the court, plus some more to cover the years to come. What a wheeze!
I was told that I was getting '60%' of the assets but that meant that I was losing '40%' when in fact I had not done anything except devote myself to him and our children. I was in very poor health when I was evicted and the County Court would not sign the eviction order. But it still went ahead. British justice?
What do I do? I will not let it rest.
That is what "my" solicitor told me. It seemed OK to everybody else in the legal system but not to my neighbours and friends who knew the reality of the situation. No mention of the property law or of Section 25 requirements... I think that solicitor has a lot to answer for, but she is not the only one since all the vultures circled around at the same time. Since then I have been gathering evidence and I will get them, one way or the other...
I am treated as a pariah as I won't accept that it was a normal divorce.
I have had two divorces, one normal and this second one. In a 'normal' divorce people can't talk to each other on the phone without screeching on the line, they are doing their utmost to be awkward and hate each other (even though they might become friends later as happened to husband No 1).
Husband No 2 left home on/around 5/7/2006. We met a three times in July 2006, allegedly to discuss the divorce. We talked as if nothing had happened. We talked about which of his things I had brought for him to the meeting, etc. all in a calm tone of voice and no verbal aggro or raised voices. I wrote detailed notes of all those meetings. I told him:'You have not got a leg to stand on' (in this divorce). He did not deny it but said 'It does not matter as we will win'. I said 'how come?' His reply was 'money talks'. In the taxi back from central London to Euston (for him to get on the train), we passed Camden Registrar where we had got married. He was crying. I was patting his hand and said 'Don't worry. I married you twice (we got a church special blessing later) so I dare say I could marry you a third time!..' I think what he was after was a major crisis leading to some notoriety for himself as an artist so that he could benefit from the price of his work going up whilst he is still alive (not interested in anybody else benefiting).
I think the email putting an end to such meetings was not written by him. He has not been able to come to our only son's wedding or to our grand-daughter's christening. With a normal divorce, I am sure we could have ignored each other or been polite enough for the sake of our children but she (that woman, aka wife N°2) knew that she was not welcome so she did not trust him to ho on his own.
With me, he always had a large studio where he could produce very large paintings if he felt like it, he had his own phone and his own computer. He also had a lot of freedom. I think he only has the use of the entrance hall in the baronial hall where he lives now and must pack his stuff away... he has no freedom. People don't see him without her being there...
Normal divorce? I don't think so! Anyway, I don't want him back now but I still think something was/is wrong and I am entitled to a lot more than I got.
What do you think?
I think the email putting an end to such meetings was not written by him. He has not been able to come to our only son's wedding or to our grand-daughter's christening. With a normal divorce, I am sure we could have ignored each other or been polite enough for the sake of our children but she (that woman, aka wife N°2) knew that she was not welcome so she did not trust him to go on his own.
With me, he always had a large studio where he could produce very large paintings if he felt like it, he had his own phone and his own computer. He also had a lot of freedom. I think he only has the use of the entrance hall in the baronial hall where he lives now and must pack his stuff away... he has no freedom. Not even artistic freedom if we wanted it. People don't see him without her being there...
I know that people embellish the truth and lie in a divorce but if they fabricate evidence and lie in their affidavits to the Court, you still think they can't be challenged?
There must be a way...