M
Not necessarily in the property itself, though it should have been taken into account.They are not divorced. Father is now looking for divorce.
Question:
Is she entitled to a share in the house that he didn't disclose at time of seperation agreement?
Not necessarily.Would she have been entitled to a share of the house and land instead of just getting it in the kids names?
possiblyWould she be entitled to a lump sum in a divorce?
yes (maintenance is not the mothers right, it is the childs requirement and the father's obligation.)Is she still entitled to maintenance with 1 dependant child remaining?
"As for maintenance she gets a set amount for her and a set amount per child would be around 160pw"
Is she getting €160 per week per child? or €160 per week in total? the first would be reasonably decent; the second a little light - indeed it would be very light if she has no earnings of her own.
On the alleged unfairness of the arrangements already made, the major asset would appear to be the 'large amount of land'. (I assume we are talking a good sized farm). I think it might help to consider it in the following light:
1. As regards putting the land into the name of the children, this is not something which a court would normally order against the wishes of one or other party, but it is something which spouses might agree between themselves and then a court order would be made to give effect to the agreed terms.
2. Where spouses do agree to this, I think there is merit in it. Many people would view a landholding as being something which is rightfully the property of the next generation, with the present owners being only the custodians. It is not necessarily logical, but it is a very common attitude, especially in farming families.
3. At the time of the separation, there was a possibility that either the husband or the wife would go on to have children in another relationship. This in turn would have raised the possibility of the farm ending up in the hands of the dreaded 'outsiders'.
4. The arrangement which was implemented in this case secured the inheritance for the children of this marriage, presumably buying some peace of mind on this issue for either or both of the separating spouses.
5. While the wife may now regret agreeing to do this, I do not think that there is anything inherently unfair in what was done. Far from it in fact. It is often an eminently sensible arrangement in the case of a family farm. Splitting a farm (as often happens) can leave the farming business unviable, damaging the ability of the farming spouse (if he\she is the primary earner) to earn enough to pay maintenance to the other spouse and leaving a nasty taste for years.
Hi Mercman,
I think you may be jumping to conclusions just a little bit. Your conclusions may of course be correct, but they are not yet supported by actual evidence. We don't know that the husband in this case 'buggered off'. He may have been thrown out; he may have initially been barred on foot of baseless allegations (the law in this area has changed a lot over the past 15 years as well....); We do know that he surrendered his interest in the family home. We also know that he has a new partner; We know that the existing farm has been committed to the children of the first marriage, We know that there is an order for joint custody and that the father has not bought shoes. Apart from not buying shoes, we don't actually have any info on how involved he has been in parenting. (There are four children in my family, concidentally, and their father has never bought shoes. It's not a dad thing). Has he had them 1 night a week? or 4? Does he do the school run? Does he do the collecting and dropping off for other things? Does he bring them to swimming\soccer\football? Does the mother?
Without a whole lot more info, it is, I think, very wrong to go straight to judgement.
We don't know that the wife devoted herself full time to raising the four children. She may well have had her own career too. The question was delicately asked but not answered. If she had no other income, I would have thought the OP would have volunteered this info.
I am not criticising the OP, who obviously has his\her own perspective on the thing, but it is very noticeable on topics like this that the initial posting usually only gives one side of the story, and tends to dwell only on those aspects which support a particular viewpoint. To paraphrase, I think, Mark Twain, we are getting a handsome dividend of conjecture here from a trifling investment of fact.
As for going back to court father has sent a message of sort through the kids that if goes back to court he will leave her with nothing. So she is in limbo and doesn't know what to do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?