10 year divorce court saga on division of a modest house

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,436
In weekend pub meetings, for about two years a friend has been relating the usually hilarious legal antics of a husband in a divorce case who was determined to minimise his divorced wife's legal settlement share in the house they jointly owned. My friend became acquainted with the wife about two years ago in the final stages of her ten year legal saga.
The husband's behaviour would be excellent material for a television drama not unlike the American comedy "My cousin Vinny" whose character was portrayed as a very clever amateur lawyer.While the husband's stubborn behaviour cost him most of his share in the house in legal costs awarded to his divorced wife, extending his proverbial day in court to a decade in court in about forty court hearings must have pleased him by frustrating his divorced wife and giving him opportunities to play amateur solicitor. His saga of legal objections to an even split of the house were mostly frivolous but prolonged court hearings. Many of his ideas for objections were picked up from attending cases with a friend in the city's main courthouse.Towards the end,it took several court hearings before he obeyed the judge's order to hand over the house keys.My friend gave the judge credit for an excellent report on the case but that is poor solace to the wife for her ten year delay.
This case raises issues about the capacity of stubborn participants in court cases to prolong cases to an absurd extent.
 


Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
14,698
In weekend pub meetings, for about two years a friend has been relating the usually hilarious legal antics of a husband in a divorce case who was determined to minimise his divorced wife's legal settlement share in the house they jointly owned. My friend became acquainted with the wife about two years ago in the final stages of her ten year legal saga.
The husband's behaviour would be excellent material for a television drama not unlike the American comedy "My cousin Vinny" whose character was portrayed as a very clever amateur lawyer.While the husband's stubborn behaviour cost him most of his share in the house in legal costs awarded to his divorced wife, extending his proverbial day in court to a decade in court in about forty court hearings must have pleased him by frustrating his divorced wife and giving him opportunities to play amateur solicitor. His saga of legal objections to an even split of the house were mostly frivolous but prolonged court hearings. Many of his ideas for objections were picked up from attending cases with a friend in the city's main courthouse.Towards the end,it took several court hearings before he obeyed the judge's order to hand over the house keys.My friend gave the judge credit for an excellent report on the case but that is poor solace to the wife for her ten year delay.
This case raises issues about the capacity of stubborn participants in court cases to prolong cases to an absurd extent.
I can't see the PS pensions angle. Are you ok Pat?
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,780
Your friend is an idiot of the first order.

I've been through the divorce thing.

Judges don't mediate. They decide on whether the terms are equitable. They don't impose them other than in extremis. You go along with affidavits agreeing on the disposition on joint assets and in terms of childcare. You get them sorted before ever seeing a court, otherwise at the first sign of disagreement the judge adjourned and the barristers pockets new set of appearance fees.

My own divorce took five minutes in court. We had a separation agreement which covered custody etc. It was mediated outside the court by Gingerbread. Aside from those affidavits we had a separate testimony as the our son's welfare. The judge simply asked whether the arrangements were in place, were practicable and were working. We both answered in the affirmative. He stamped the documents. Five minutes.

My lawyer was livid. He wanted a fight. So was her lawyer. Myself and my now ex-wife went for beers with our new partners. None of us have ever looked back. Still friends. It is really really easy to conduct yourself that way.

I have to reiterate this: the judge has no role at all in mediating settlements. Of there is a disagreement the judge suspends matters and the parties must away and resolve them. The only discretion the judge has is to reject agreements which are not to the benefit of children.

Your friend is an idiot. My divorce cost me €550.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,436
A thing to bear in mind about Pat's tales and the friends who serendipitously happen along whenever he has a bee in his bonnet, is they they don't necessarily have any objective existence.
My usual riposte to your annoying remarks: Baron Von Bullsand
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,436
Your friend is an idiot of the first order.

I've been through the divorce thing.

Judges don't mediate. They decide on whether the terms are equitable. They don't impose them other than in extremis. You go along with affidavits agreeing on the disposition on joint assets and in terms of childcare. You get them sorted before ever seeing a court, otherwise at the first sign of disagreement the judge adjourned and the barristers pockets new set of appearance fees.

My own divorce took five minutes in court. We had a separation agreement which covered custody etc. It was mediated outside the court by Gingerbread. Aside from those affidavits we had a separate testimony as the our son's welfare. The judge simply asked whether the arrangements were in place, were practicable and were working. We both answered in the affirmative. He stamped the documents. Five minutes.

My lawyer was livid. He wanted a fight. So was her lawyer. Myself and my now ex-wife went for beers with our new partners. None of us have ever looked back. Still friends. It is really really easy to conduct yourself that way.

I have to reiterate this: the judge has no role at all in mediating settlements. Of there is a disagreement the judge suspends matters and the parties must away and resolve them. The only discretion the judge has is to reject agreements which are not to the benefit of children.

Your friend is an idiot. My divorce cost me €550.
The husband was prepared foolishly to risk squandering his share of the house in legal costs awarded to his wife to frustrate her and grandstand in court.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,780
The husband was prepared foolishly to risk squandering his share of the house in legal costs awarded to his wife to frustrate her and grandstand in court.
He was an idiot. A complete and utter idiot.

Divorce can be made easy.

If idiots decide to line the pockets of barristers then more fool them.

Don't encourage them.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,436
He was an idiot. A complete and utter idiot.

Divorce can be made easy.

If idiots decide to line the pockets of barristers then more fool them.

Don't encourage them.
But why didn't the judge put a stop to the husband's silly legal antics that were succintly detailed in the final judgement?
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,780
But why didn't the judge put a stop to the husband's silly legal antics that were succintly detailed in the final judgement?
It's not the judge's role to facilitate a divorce. If they do then that would constitute their playing an active role in it - perhaps even encouraging it. A divorce is essentially a domestic gone big and nobody in their right minds wants to insert themselves there. The judge is there mainly to preside over an equitable settlement and also to safeguard the interests of any children involved.

As I experienced, the divorce took all of five minutes or less. Ok, I was lucky in that my ex-wife was reasonable and we had a good relationship. I also was in a position to hand over the house - we barely even discussed that. My name may even now be still on the deeds. My point is that it is ridiculous to have your fights in court when you can have them outside the courtroom for free.

My lawyer was close to apoplexy when I reminded him that I was the client and that these were my instructions. Myself and my ex-wife remain very good friends.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
1,533
But why didn't the judge put a stop to the husband's silly legal antics that were succintly detailed in the final judgement?
It happens all the time, The person appeals, they then appeal the appeal, they then have a judicial review and then they appeal that. If a lawyer did that, they could be found liable for costs themselves. The time between each case could be 6 months to a year.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
14,698
It happens all the time, The person appeals, they then appeal the appeal, they then have a judicial review and then they appeal that. If a lawyer did that, they could be found liable for costs themselves. The time between each case could be 6 months to a year.
Obviously there's no way of knowing if the case in the OP is real or just another of Pat's parables but even if it is true there's no reason to accept that the husband's motive was spite.

It could be that the husband couldn't afford a lawyer and was doing his best as a layman to salvage something from a system biased against men.

There could even have been the involvement of a McKenzie friend. They typically love pettifogging objections and challenges because they're almost invariably thick as planks and come with massive chips on their shoulders.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
8,057
Obviously there's no way of knowing if the case in the OP is real or just another of Pat's parables but even if it is true there's no reason to accept that the husband's motive was spite.

It could be that the husband couldn't afford a lawyer and was doing his best as a layman to salvage something from a system biased against men.

There could even have been the involvement of a McKenzie friend. They typically love pettifogging objections and challenges because they're almost invariably thick as planks and come with massive chips on their shoulders.
:LOL:
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,436
But why didn't the judge put a stop to the husband's silly legal antics that were succintly detailed in the final judgement?
It happens all the time, The person appeals, they then appeal the appeal, they then have a judicial review and then they appeal that. If a lawyer did that, they could be found liable for costs themselves. The time between each case could be 6 months to a year.
Requests for appeals can be denied on reasonable grounds surely?
 

Stentor

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
2,178
The husband was prepared foolishly to risk squandering his share of the house in legal costs awarded to his wife to frustrate her and grandstand in court.
According to the OPs mate in the pub.

Who's now phucking her.

That's basically the OP. Right?
 

Expose the lot of them

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
20,757
Your friend is an idiot of the first order.

I've been through the divorce thing.

Judges don't mediate. They decide on whether the terms are equitable. They don't impose them other than in extremis. You go along with affidavits agreeing on the disposition on joint assets and in terms of childcare. You get them sorted before ever seeing a court, otherwise at the first sign of disagreement the judge adjourned and the barristers pockets new set of appearance fees.

My own divorce took five minutes in court. We had a separation agreement which covered custody etc. It was mediated outside the court by Gingerbread. Aside from those affidavits we had a separate testimony as the our son's welfare. The judge simply asked whether the arrangements were in place, were practicable and were working. We both answered in the affirmative. He stamped the documents. Five minutes.

My lawyer was livid. He wanted a fight. So was her lawyer. Myself and my now ex-wife went for beers with our new partners. None of us have ever looked back. Still friends. It is really really easy to conduct yourself that way.

I have to reiterate this: the judge has no role at all in mediating settlements. Of there is a disagreement the judge suspends matters and the parties must away and resolve them. The only discretion the judge has is to reject agreements which are not to the benefit of children.

Your friend is an idiot. My divorce cost me €550.
My sister's experience was similar, she was one of the first people in Ireland to conduct her own proceedings, only needed a lawyer to stamp one document.

Mediation, if required, takes place before the Court appearance and is provided free by the community law centres.
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
12,452
My lawyer was close to apoplexy when I reminded him that I was the client and that these were my instructions. Myself and my ex-wife remain very good friends.
My impression from a merciful distance is that lawyers are generally becoming more aware of the damage an adversarial approach can bring to family breakdown. However, I do know of a case where they gave one party highly unreasonable expectations which greatly prolonged proceedings.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top