Archive for the ‘Legal Advice’ Category

The ‘credit crunch’ is one of the hot topics at the moment, with the falling house prices and shops facing reduced sales. However this has also effected the divorce market, which up until now had been the one industry that hadn’t slowed due to financial changes within the world.

Now though couples are even being forced to, and it pains me to say this, stay together. This is because they cannot afford to sell their houses to split the money between them, nor can either one find a lending company willing to grant them a remortgage in order to pay the other off.

Marilyn Stowe is from Stowe Family Law stated:

For most people, this is a very difficult time because, with their main asset essentially being significantly depleted, the value has gone down, it means then that there is less money available to rehouse both parties. It’s taking longer to sell the house, and it’s increasing pressure on the parties who are still having to live together in the same house because they can’t afford to live separately.

For those people, it makes a bad situation even worse.

Finances seem to be driving people to fight divorce because they believe they will not be able to afford it, so are trying to stay together even though the relationship is over.

She claims that the current climate is in fact ideal to get divorced:

For them, this is a good time to get divorced because they’re worth far less now than they were six to 12 months ago, which means the pay-out to their partner is far less than it would have been.

This credit crunch has had different affects on people going through divorce.

My advice would be to try and buy your partner out if at all possible. Selling your property now would be financial suicide, whereas you could buy out your ex on a discounted rate (as I did) and then you’ll win in the long run.

Clive Bellmore

Post a Comment

John Cleese has had to sell his £8.25 million Santa Barbara home in order to pay his ex-wife the £75,000 he has been ordered to pay in temporary maintenance by a US court. Cleese claims that even though the divorce is going to be extremely expensive, it is worth every penny.

His soon to be ex-wife, Alyce Faye Eichelberger, claims she hasn’t received a penny from the Monty Python star since their split. They were married for 15 years.

Cleese is still trying to see the funny side of things as he claimed he’d sent copies of his wife’s divorce claims to his former Python colleagues, suggesting their may be a reality TV show in there somewhere.

His wife claims that he earns £93,000 per month, which Cleese countered that it was only last year he enjoyed that amount of income due to Shrek 3 and a property investment that netted him £750,000.

But, even if John Cleese was earning £93,000 per month this year, how does that warrant getting £75,000 of that? That’s almost 80% of his income. For work that he has done. What has she done for 80% of John Cleese’s money?

Cleese claims his income now is around £55,000 per month, which means he is now losing money to his ex-wife. At that rate, he’ll be bankrupt in a few years. I hope he has a good lawyer, it looks like his wife is trying to rip him off.

Clive Bellmore

Post a Comment

You may have seen in the news on Tuesday that a barrister was involved in a 5 hour police shoot out in London, before police marksmen shot him 5 times, killing him. Mark Saunders was the Billy the Kid wannabe, and as luck would have it he was a divorce lawyer specialist.

Mark lived in a £2.2 million London flat, paid for no doubt with the money from bickering couples, and it was in his luxury home that he decided to take on the entire London police force.

Lynda Morris, the coroner’s officer, said:

The multiple gunshot wounds present are associated with severe internal damage to the brain, the heart, the liver and the main vein of the lower body.

When the armed police approached Mark began firing at his neighbours in Markham Square, one of the wealthy areas of London’s Chelsea district.

Mark was shot in the head, the heart and the liver in an exemplary display of police marksmanship.

Lynda Morris went on to say:

The multiple gunshot wounds present are associated with severe internal damage to the brain, the heart, the liver and the main vein of the lower body.

The external and internal gunshot-related damage is consistent with a minimum of five shots having hit the deceased.

The nature of the wound and the projectile material recovered from the body suggests that more than one type of bullet has hit the deceased and further information will become available on this point.

It’s not know yet why this divorce lawyer decided to shoot at his neighbours and the police. Maybe guilt caught up with him?

Clive Bellmore

Post a Comment

An Australian man is on trial for shooting his divorce lawyer dead after it is said that his divorce split didn’t go so well, causing him to lose his house and have difficulty with access to his daughter.

There shouldn’t be any problems for him on that score now, if he becomes a convicted murderer.

John Thomas Glascott, 44 is on trial for shooting his divorce lawyer, 56 year old David Robinson, outside his Fairfield office in 2006 when the lawyer arrived there to print off some schoolwork for his son. Supposedly Mr Robinson was shot with an old Russian pistol, using ammunition that John Thomas Glascott brought over from Cambodia.

It has been reported that Glascott’s daughter once saw a print out of a gun, and when asked about the gun Glascott said he’d planned to shoot himself dead on her birthday.

And still this guy had access to his daughter?

Please note we’ve filed this under ‘legal advice’ but wouldn’t necessarily advise anyone to actually murder their divorce lawyer. It doesn’t go down well in court, even though it probably work out cheaper in the long run.

Clive Bellmore

Comments (2)

We all know that getting divorced can be expensive. As well as giving your soon to be ex-wife half of your worldly possessions (unless you’ve a seriously good lawyer like Paul McCartney) you’ll also have t pay for all of the legal costs, and solicitors are very expensive. Even the rubbish ones cost a fortune.

With this in mind, it may be cheaper for to try a collaborative divorce. This means you and your soon to be ex get together and iron out the technicalities of your separation without the need for a lawyer. Obviously doing this means you do need to cooperate, or collaborate (as the name suggests) which involves talking to each other in a courteous manner.

Something which most divorcing couples refuse to do.

If you can cope with talking to your soon to be ex, the Academy of Collaborative Professionals is offering a free download of a Collaborative Divorce Knowledge Kit.

For a limited time, the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP) is offering a free, downloadable “Collaborative Divorce Knowledge Kit.” The kit is designed for individuals unsure of the Collaborative divorce model. It explains the non-court Collaborative process and includes a “Litigation Divorce vs. Collaborative Divorce” chart that directly compares the two models and recent case studies.

Clive Bellmore

Comments (2)

A while ago I blogged about the single occupancy discount on your council tax that you could claim for if you’re now living on your own after your ex-wife leaves the property. However, there are more complicated and somewhat farcical elements to the way council tax is worked out.

For example:

If you live on your own in a property you are permitted a 25% discount for single occupancy. Nice and straight forward that one.

If however the house is empty, and devoid of furniture, you are permitted a 50% discount on the council tax for several months. This should help you make ends meet if you have had to move away as a result of your divorce.

Now, if the house isn’t lived in by anyone, but has some furniture in it, no matter how little, you will be forced to pay the full amount of council tax. You won’t get any discount, even for single occupancy, even though no one lives there at all. This may seem strange, and unfair, but it’s the way the council have their rules. They say it’s to avoid people buying second homes and avoiding the full council tax rates, but obviously it more often than not catches people who are unfortunate in divorce situations and thus have to pay full council tax on two properties.

If you’re unhappy about this, as I imagine anyone who is affected by it will be, I’d suggest you write to your local MP about the rules.

I can see the point to the rule, but the practise means that honest, hard-working people in unusual circumstances are penalised.

Clive Bellmore

Post a Comment

This video is hilarious, if not slightly sad in many ways. This guy has returned home from work to find the house he lives in alone has had the locks changed by his ex-wife, who doesn’t even live there. He tries to get the keys from his ex-father-in-law, who doesn’t answer the door, then he tries to break into his own house.

What’s even funnier then is the police turn up and threaten to arrest him for breach of the peace if he doesn’t leave, despite this being his house, where he lives alone.

What a messed up country we live in.

Clive Bellmore

Post a Comment

If you’re separated and living on your own you’ll eventually think it’s a good idea to contact the council and inform them so, in order to qualify for a single occupancy discount on your council tax. It makes sense doesn’t? It’ll save you a fair few quid each month.

However, if you’re living in the house on your own and it’s still jointly owned you should be aware that by telling the council that you’re now a sole occupant. you’re absolving your ex partner of any responsibility for council tax on that property. You won’t then be able to turn round and say well, it’s a jointly owned home so we should share the bills… even if you leave to live somewhere else while the house is sold.

You could in fact be living somewhere else AND paying council tax on another property, but as far as the council would be concerned you would still be responsible for the tax on your jointly owned property.

So before you contact them and claim single occupancy be sure that you’re not planning to move out soon and that you don’t mind your ex-partner being totally absolved from responsibility with regards to the council tax.

Clive Bellmore

Comments (1)

Since my blog post about the murky area surrounding the legality of property I’ve had several searches to this website surrounding the question of whether your wife can change the locks to your house when you’re getting divorced.

Sadly this again is murky. While it may well be a jointly owned house if your wife feels threatened in any away she can refuse you access to the property, so yes, she can change the locks. The situation gets even more murky if she moves out and you remain in the house. In this instance if the financial dispute is ongoing you would be advised not to change the locks yourself because she could use that against you in court, and she has a right to enter the property.

She could of course enter the house herself while you’re not there and change them to lock you out. There is nothing illegal in her doing this, but if she doesn’t reside in the property you would have a right to break in and change them back again.

Remember, this is so long as she doesn’t reside there. You cannot break in if she lives in the house!

Simply put either of you can change the locks, but if your wife lives elsewhere either of you can change them back again. It’s best to avoid the situation altogether because changing locks several times a week is both pointless and expensive.

Clive Bellmore

Comments (2)

If you’ve recently split from your wife, but you’re still married (or even if you’re divorced) and the financial settlement hasn’t been agreed then you BOTH still have a legal right to access the former matrimonial home. Even if one of you has moved out.

Say for example your ex leaves and you’re living in the home, she then has a right at any time to enter the property. You can change the locks, some solicitors will even recommend it, but she then has the right to get a locksmith to change them again, or even to break in. The simple issue here is that police will not get involved unless there is a physical threat to one or the other parties.

What does all of this mean for you? Basically if you’re living in the former matrimonial home nothing you own in that home is safe. I’d suggest you remove any valuables immediately. She can enter the house, clean everything out and the police won’t even come out to take a look. It’s not because they’re lazy (though I’m sure that’s a factor and they’ll use the law to support their bone idle behaviour) but instead it’s because they can’t actually do anything.

Be advised though, if you’re the one who has moved out and your ex lives in the house, while yes you have a right to enter the house (and even break in if necessary) she can and will apply for a court order to have you restrained. This is something you won’t be able to do easily, but she will.

The law works in these mysterious ways.

So I’d advise you not to try entering the house if she’s in residence, and if you’re living there get your valuables out now. She has every legal right to help herself, and in an awful twist of irony she can also allow her friends and family in there as well to strip you of your possessions.

Fancy coming home to an empty house? Be warned.

Clive Bellmore

Comments (7)