Divorce

[davidk65]

A couple have /are getting divorced. Grounds of the divorce being unreasonable conduct by one of the parties which was admitted. There was a mutual agreement that neither party would make a claim on the others assets. Now the party, who accepted responsibility for the breakdown in the relationship, has been asked to disclose the details of their finances to the other parties solicitor. Can they refuse to disclose this information on the grounds of the mutual agreement that neither would claim against the other?

[nilrac52]

Absolutely not. A mutual agreement or understanding has no standing in law. Any agreements should be written and signed by both parties with an independent witness. Obviously the one who was not responsible has decided to seek retribution. Time for the guilty party to see a solicitor

[bednobs]

nope, people change their minds. After the divorce is final, it will be completely over if they agree a financial seperation. Until then; complete bun fight

[Peter Pedant]

Your fren' should NOT be asking - OK well taking - advice on here
but should be hiring a divorce lawyer...

Recent case if you recollect Vince v Wyatt
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed113625

on this very subject. Because there was no final order one party was allowed to re-open the bun-fight after twenty y

Your fren' - he doesnt need us -
he needs a lawyer.

If one of us said - yeah tell the other side to s+d off
your fren wouldnt act on it would he ?

[lcg]

people say all sorts of things to set others up.......a verbal agreement means absolutely nothing without witnesses or other proof - i.e. your mate is in deep poop and needs a lawyer asap.

[lcg]

and for peter.......as was said at the time:

'this isn't about [the husbands] millions [made after the divorce], it's about whether he owed support starting before that. And it's not about whether she was entitled to anything. They [hadn't] got to that stage. It was about whether she was entitled to go to court and ask for it [to be reviewed].'

peter: read all of the ruling rather than posting rubbish that can be highlighted from the internet.

[bednobs]

how flipping rude!
peter's "rubbish from the internet" actually sets out the case in quite clear terms. I have no idea why your answers should be seen as superior to pedant's answers (seeing as you both said exactly the same thing!)

[Peter Pedant]

Bednobs - thx for the support - I neva did this for money so I can stand people saying " well that is crop... " and not even "well that is crop if you ask me". By contrast there was a time when someone asked barmaid ( chancery QC )if she knew what she was talking about and poor BM suffered a near melt down...

lcg - I have ( read Wyatt v Vince ). its here
https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0186_Judgment.pdf



the ruling IS remarkable - off the cuff - the papers were mainly lost - the parties could only agree on 1) they loathed each other 2) they HAD divorced. They couldnt even agree on whether a final judgement HAD been discussed, he denied he had opposed it, they couldnt agree on what payments HAD been made

and the lawyers commented afterwards that theywerent sure how much it changes the law....

But the case DID show clearly how if you didnt do it properly first time round it could come around and bite you later

as Bednobs points out - exactly what we were both saying