# Full Declaration Of Assets In Family Law



## louthman2013 (4 Mar 2013)

In a separation agreement, is it generally the case that the parties simply detail their assets and liabilities, or are sworn statements taken always taken, like an affidavit of means in a divorce case? What are the penalties for non- disclosure of assets in a non-judicial separation agreement?


----------



## WizardDr (4 Mar 2013)

In Judicial Separation where financial relifef is being sought, then an affidavit of means needs to be sworn and filed by both sides. This is the 1995 Act and it also follows for the 1996 Act (as in Divorce).

It is not always the case that there are affidavits for Separation. But if financial relef is sought then its an affidavit of means which is a sworn statement. Same as for divorce.

If its deliberately false then you have lied to the Court - as if you gave evdience on the stand. In law the affidavit may be in place of viva voce evidence. If its a mistake, it depends on the significance.

All this depends on proof i.e. as both sides see the others Affidavit, lying about known assets seems a bit off the wall, but then separation and divorce seems to do that.

The consequences can vary - sometimes the actual omission may be relatively trivial but these cases are all in camera and reporting of them is skethcy. The Circuit Court judges would not be particularly patient individuals so the omission would need to be significant and you would need proof.


----------



## Bronte (5 Mar 2013)

People will and do hide assets and income, particularly in acrimonious divorce proceedings


----------



## WizardDr (5 Mar 2013)

@Bronte - I agree. Strong mediation - if it exists - can help.
But one person claimimg lies and the other honest mistake .. I think for malfeasance and lies to be alleged - its a high standard. Getting the matter included
if is relevant is the objective. The emotions on family law matters suggests to me that its not suited to the legal process at all - unless you are a legal advisor. Nothing like a fairly solvent pig ignorant litigant. 

I think a low voice is used by legal folk such as "I would not advise that we do X because the other side will do Y" -and  because its in low voice, the litigant thinks its not actually disapproving at all and goes ahead with strategy X. Sometimes these litigants are emtionally in a wrong place  and should get a firm rebuke as it is a hot stove we are dealing with sometimes - I would like to say 'slap him or her' but I mean it metaphorically for the avoidance of doubt.

One of the problems is that family members simply either take sides or check out and for example the horrendous abuse of the Safety Orders means that the Courts are wasting time where one or other side or both require serious talking to.


----------



## mf1 (5 Mar 2013)

"The emotions on family law matters suggests to me that its not suited to the legal process at all - unless you are a legal advisor. Nothing like a fairly solvent pig ignorant litigant"

That is patronising and a huge disservice to most family law practitioners. 

Litigants in matrimonial cases, invariably, in my experience, deliberately seek out find the legal advisers that best suit their requirements/needs. Be that to litigate endlessly or settle amicably. 

If the parties are sensible, civil and respectful of each other, mediation works  and works well. It does not work where there is no joint commitment and no respect. 

"the Courts are wasting time where one or other side or both require serious talking to. "

In my experience, 25 years as a domestic and family law solicitor, most solicitors do that serious talking to. But, for much of the time, it is a waste of time if a client simply will not listen. 

As regards Safety Orders, I would roughly calculate ( again, from experience) that no more than  10% of Safety Orders are issued based on untrue allegations. The rest are needed and, indeed, so badly needed that I would almost question if they can be effective against completely out of control behaviour.  

mf


----------



## WizardDr (5 Mar 2013)

@mf1 Are you seriously suggesting that the process of in camera hearings where this is all hidden away and there is little public knowledge of some of the ways some of these cases are heard .. that this is patronising? Its a reality for some.

The parties or at least one of them are not sensible. 

You are in fact agreeing that many wont listen - so we will carry on shall we?

The abuse of the maintence payments system - is this a success?

I rest.


----------



## mf1 (5 Mar 2013)

I am suggesting that your use of the phrase: 

"The emotions on family law matters suggests to me that its not suited to the legal process at all - unless you are a legal advisor. Nothing like a fairly solvent pig ignorant litigant"

is patronising.  

"You are in fact agreeing that many wont listen - so we will carry on shall we?"

They get the point when they appear in front of a Judge. And we don't have a better system. If we did, it would be 10 enforced mediation sessions in a very short space of time failing which it would be straight in front of the Judge. The "stick" that some clients need to make them see sense. 

"The abuse of the maintence payments system - is this a success?" 

What are you referring to? 

mf


----------



## WizardDr (5 Mar 2013)

Exract from a Combat Poverty Agency Report:
Of 470  orders made for maintenance only 12.5% were fully paid up with over 76.6% over 6 payments in arrears and 28% of orders never had a single payment made by the maintenance debtor. [This is going back a while]

"Government Discussion Paper – Proposal for Supporting Lone Parents" is en extensive report dealing with matters of lone parents. It is quite evident that the ‘One Parent Family Allowance’ has helped enormously spouses who have separated and are not able to extract maintenance payments from their spouse. The Department also follows up with ‘liable relatives’ which is those deemed liable to make a contribution towards maintenance where another is in receipt of one parent family allowance. 


The report highlighted that it reviewed  19,998 cases where there was either inadequate or minimum maintenance of what is a statutory obligation. Of the 19,998 cases reviewed – there are about 87,000 receiving one parent family allowance – over 51% of the relatives were in employment but in 9,447 cases – 78% - were not required to contribute. In point an estimate of total recoveries for 2010 was €2,952,557  from all recoveries in relation to one parent family allowance including the totality of attachment orders....significant issue in relation to maintenance and that is that the courts view of what a maintenance debtor needs to live on and what the Department think are not the same


----------



## mf1 (5 Mar 2013)

And this has what to do with your original statement? 

I cannot see the connection between that statement and the subsequent broadening of the topic to include Safety Orders and Maintenance payments. 

And the problem with non payment of Court ordered maintenance payments is one of enforcement. And attitude of parents who feel no sense of obligation towards their children. 

mf


----------



## WizardDr (5 Mar 2013)

The connection is quite simple - the whole family law process is a shambles and the only ones who deny it are lawyers. Period. End of. There is no accountability when there are in camera proceedings but you'l; convince me day is night next.


----------



## Bronte (6 Mar 2013)

WizardDr said:


> The connection is quite simple - the whole family law process is a shambles and the only ones who deny it are lawyers. Period. End of. There is no accountability when there are in camera proceedings but you'l; convince me day is night next.


 
I'm not a fan of the in camera ruling myself. That said MF1's point that a lot of people create a War of the Roses situation for themselves is very valid. 

My own parents separated acrimoniously, but they agreed on the financials as amicably as possible via their very good family solicitor who was I guess an excellent mediator as they say nowadays, I'd use the term realist. They didn't want to waste the family assets such as they were on lawyers and the legal system, and realised, which most people don't seem to get, that if you are going to go the whole hog on your particular point of principal/anger/disagreement that it dissapates the family assets to the detriment of all concerned.  But it doesn't have to be like this and one must learn to agree and settle.  

Unfortunately most people are so angry they don't see this and instead afterwards, because of the bitter taste, and the high financial costs, well they blame the lawyers.  Stay away from the courts folks.


----------



## louthman2013 (10 Mar 2013)

Sorry, can I further clarify my question. In a voluntary seperation agreement, not a judicial seperation, would it be the case that there is usually a sworn affadavit of means? Also, where salary goes into a joint account, would it be the norm to look for a payslip & also P60?. One of my friends is entering into a seperation agreement with his wife,its amicable, but just wondering about this? Is it automatic or a bit over the top to look for these measures?
Louthman


----------



## mf1 (12 Mar 2013)

"In a voluntary seperation agreement, not a judicial seperation, would it be the case that there is usually a sworn affadavit of means?"

Not necessarily. 

"Also, where salary goes into a joint account, would it be the norm to look for a payslip & also P60?. "

But if the salary is clearly going into a joint account, what is the point of seeking a payslip and P60? Unless there are deep suspicions about deductions and the like? 

None of this is automatic in an amicable separation agreement but it would be prudent, if there is any lack of clarity, to seek vouching documentation for everything. 

mf


----------



## mf1 (12 Mar 2013)

My learned and esteemed colleague, Vanilla, has pointed to me that it is, in fact, Law Society recommended best practice that Affidavits of Means should be sworn, filed and vouched in all cases of Separation Agreements, amicable or otherwise.  

I stand corrected. 

mf1


----------

