Implications for division of property assets after divorce

Jpmaca said:
My main concern is the issue around property as I'm concerned about a court ordered sale of the home here and division of proceeds especially as she has her housing needs essentially taken care of in her home country.
Click to expand...
I dont think you need to be concerned about this. Your home in Ireland is not the family home and will not be the primary residence for your child so it can be treated as any other asset in your asset split. The court will 99% for certain not order sale of your Irish home.
 
What is yoir wifes position wrt your property in ireland? Sorry if I have missed this point.

Does she want it or not? If not, then cant that be reflected in your Agreement?
 
Jpmaca said:
I suppose my question is, in the event of appropriate maintenance being agreed upon, and my wife's housing needs taken care of, will the house here be let stay in my possession to live in.
Click to expand...
You can’t look at this in isolation. Both parties’ incomes, assets, and needs are factored in.

For me an equitable outcome is both parties retain their PPR (and mortgage) along with maintenance. But I have zero experience of family courts.
 
jim said:
What is yoir wifes position wrt your property in ireland? Sorry if I have missed this point.

Does she want it or not? If not, then cant that be reflected in your Agreement?
Click to expand...
Jpmaca said:
Wife and I are reasonable people, she has previously stated she has no desire for a share in my property, just maintenance which I'm happy to provide.
Click to expand...
 
What others have said; if you and your wife can agree the resolution of your property and financial affairs, whatever you agree will almost certainly suit both you you better than a resolution dictated by the court because you have failed to agree. And if the agreement is reasonable and fair to both parties the court is very likely to approve it. So concentrate on getting agreement with your wife about this.

However, going into negotiations about things like this, one or both parties very often want to know "if we fail to reach agreement, what kind of solution is the court likely to impose"? That's the kind of information that is helpful to know in negotiations of this kind, since it helps you to evaluate suggestions that might be made in the negotiations — "Is this suggestion better or worse for me than what I would be likely to get if I turn it down, and the matter ends up in court?" So, the question the OP is asking is a reasonable question.

However, it doesn't have a very clear answer. On the face of it, if your wife owns a house that she will live in and to that you haven't contributed , and if you own a house that you will live in that she hasn't contributed towards, "we both keep our own houses" looks like a very reasonable solution that a court is likely to approve. But — no offence — we're only hearing your side of the story. If your wife were making a similar enquiry, she might draw attention to aspects of the situation that seem important or signficant to her, that you think comparatively unimportant. And, if the matter goes to court, then the judge will hear both sides before making a decision, so the judge will be working off different (and fuller) information than we are. So, really, you shouldn't attach too much signficance to what we think a court might decide, if it came to court. We don't know what the court would be told. We don't know what you wife would be seeking. We don't know what arguments she would make in support of what she might seek.
 
Thanks, yes understandably it's tempting to give one side only but that is the honest situation as regards property, important to note that I have already given her a substantial sum to pay down the mortgage principle of her property. Hopefully these things are taken into account
 
They do aim for a holistic settlement that takes everything into account. But "everything" means just that — they don't look only at who paid for what along the way but also at other factors, like how the parties are currently situated, asset- and income-wise; what their respective earning capacities are; what their respective needs are; etc. Plus, of course, the interests of the child.

And, when I said that we've only heard one side of the story, I didn't mean to imply that you were being selective in what you said, in the hope of hearing the opinion that you hope to hear — not at all. It's just that your spouse will have her own perspective on this, and will tell the story a bit differently, and if it does come to a showdown in court, the judge will hear both versions. Which means that you wouldn't want to place too much reliance on a prediction about what the judge might do from people (like us) who've only heard the story from one of the spouses
 
thanks, for a novice like me this is divorce for slow learners so apologies if I'm repeating myself. If our mediation agreement stipulates that property wise we are both happy to keep our own respective properties (both of which are adequate for our needs including for childcare) and maintenance arrangements (including pension) are fair and reasonable, in your experience / knowledge are the courts llkely to respect our wishes regarding property. apologies for sounding like a broken record, I do intend to seek legal advice shortly, its just the thought of being ordered to sell the property fills me with dread.
 
No experience of meditation but, in my experience and based on other examples outlined to me by my solicitor and experiences of others that I know, if both spouses, advised/guided by their respective legal teams, come to a mutually agreeable and generally fair agreement (and - most importantly - one that prioritises and takes care of the rights and needs of any children), then a judge/court is most likely going to approve it having ascertained for themselves that it's fair and reasonable. Courts/judges (and most family law solicitors/barristers) are much keener to have the couple negotiate and arrive at a mutually agreeable and fair settlement, and will do everything that they can to encourage and facilitate that, than to have to impose a decision - something that will generally be an absolute last resort for hard cases involving a lot of disagreement and conflict between the parties.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register