In November, I wrote about a divorceés appeal to prevent her ex-husband's bankruptcy trustee from seizing her share of their marital home. Wendy Haines won her appeal to the British Appeals Court, which ruled that she wouldn't have to give up her share of the proceeds from the sale of the family home.

After their divorce, David Haines petitioned for bankruptcy. The trustee claimed that the transfer of the sale proceeds of the marital home defrauded David's creditors and was void. I'd written that I thought the High Court judge was wrong in awarding the trustee Wendy's share. If this decision was allowed to stand, it would place all property settlements in jeopardy where an ex-spouse files for bankruptcy.

Wendy does not have to help payoff her ex-husband's creditors by relinquishing part of her divorce settlement. The Court of Appeals reversal of the High Court's decision assures that divorce court settlement agreements could not be undone because one spouse becomes bankrupt. I rooted for Wendy, who now can enjoy a "clean-break divorce."

Vindictive spouses, by deliberately creating huge debts, can defeat a divorce property settlement agreement. In this case, with a 10-year-old child, Wendy needed a financial settlement after divorce which could not later be nullified by a bankruptcy trustee. Divorce actions need some closure and predictability.

The trustee is appealing to the House of Lords, the British court of last resort. I hope the Lords refuse to accept the case, or if they do, will affirm the Appeals Court holding.

Click here for more.

I wonder why multimillion dollar men often refuse to pay their former spouses maintenance and child support ordered following a divorce. Some guys become so vindictive that they are determined to make the life of their ex hell, just because they can afford to do so.

I read in The Guardian that for over eight years, Iqbal Mubarik, owner of a world- wide jewelry enterprise, has been able to thwart numerous court orders for a lump sum payment nearly £5 million (around $10 million) to his former wife. Mubarik's wealth is tied up in trusts, making it difficult to enforce the court orders.

It's puzzling to me that the British family court is unable to enforce their divorce orders. Instead of bringing finality, they are peppered by continuous court filings and appeals. Mubarik has spent £2 million (around $4.5 million) attempting to avoid paying his former wife.

Because of the legal complications, the British government is paying over £30,000 ($65,000) in legal aid to protect his two minor children's interest in the family trust. It's ludicrous that public money is used to protect children of millionaires. The wife, to date, has collected only £266,000 (about $450,000) due to the forced sale of some of the ex's property. He's also in arrears in paying £14,000 a month (around $30,000) for maintenance and legal fees.

The judges have taken notice of this protracted case and the attendant costs. They noted that Mubarik, with world-wide interests, is able to escape paying British taxes. I can't believe the court does not have the requisite tools to bring this charade to an end. This case is making a mockery of the British family justice system. This is a form of legal aid for the rich.

I think that U.S. courts would take more decisive action. What do you think?

Click here for more.

I could hardly believe the recent ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court that a divorced man must continue to pay his ex spousal support, even though he's now disabled. Upon further exploration, I found the reasoning for this extraordinary decision. Arizona law disallows changes to court approved divorce decrees "which say changes can't be made later."

Why would anybody freely agree to a clause which precludes any changes in alimony? Did he not have an attorney to protect his interests? Should he not have thought about what would happen if his income was diminished or if he became incapacitated so that he couldn't work? We don't know the payment amount nor the duration of the alimony payments.

Even lower Arizona courts were ambivalent about the issue. The trial judge refused to end the spousal support, but the Court of Appeals said changes could be made because of extraordinary circumstances. The case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court which proclaimed, "no changes means no changes." I was unsuccessful in checking the background of the parties and wonder how the court could enforce payment if he had little income.

Most states allow modification for either child or spousal support orders if there are financial changes of either party. Arizona would normally allow modification unless there is a specific prohibition on modification in the divorce decree order.

I would like to know more about the background and condition of this disabled man. I will continue to search. Please standby.

Click here for more.

I was shocked to read about a recent divorce situation in Ireland. There is no finality to a divorce in Ireland, where courts may re-open and re-negotiate divorce financial settlements if the assets of the bread winner increases after the divorce.

In this case, the wife was ordered to pay a lump sum of over ₤2 million — around $4 million — to her ex-husband, despite their full and final settlement of divorce six years ago. The court said the husband was not properly provided for since her business assets skyrocketed to more than ₤15 million, or $30 million.

Final settlement agreements have no effect when one of the parties acquires wealth, even years after the settlement or divorce. In an earlier case this year, a husband who divorced in 2000 must pay his former wife an additional ₤2 million, representing monetary gains from the recent sale of his business. "Ex-partners have an obligation to support their spouses for life," said the judge.

Irish divorce laws differ from those in Britain and the US. Divorce only became legal after a 1995 referendum amending their Constitution which recognizes the "family as the basis of social order, possessing rights and guarantees of protection by the state." Former family bread winners can expect court orders increasing maintenance or the division of property.

I find a problem that these agreements are never final. This is an unjust imposition on the former breadwinner who cannot move on or establish a new family. US courts do allow for modification of support orders based on job loss, health problems, or increased income of the support recipient. I do not feel comfortable ordering the supporting spouse to pay additional monies due to increased value of their business, years after a final separation or divorce agreement.

read more »

Wendy Haines, a British divorcee, was awarded the marital home in her February 2006 divorce. Unfortunately her ex-husband David filed for bankruptcy and in December, the trustee made claim to 50 percent of the interest in the house. It looks like Wendy is going to lose half of the house already awarded to her by the court.

The challenge was based on the presumption that David fraudulently disposed of assets in order to defeat his creditors. Although this was likely not the case, the Appeals court ordered Wendy to turn over half of the funds from the sale of the house, which was sold to pay for the current litigation.

The trial court, in awarding Wendy the house, noted that the Haines family had an extravagant life style in buying the home, farm, horses, cars and living beyond their means. Wendy has appealed to the High Court of Appeals.

If this decision is allowed to stand, bankruptcy trustees will have a field day overturning final divorce decisions in which the debtor's property has been transferred to the former spouse within a potential timeframe of up to five years.

This common law is also followed in the US. Trustees can set aside property settlement orders of divorce courts where a spouse has incurred substantial debt. Often, disgruntled exes will go off on spending sprees to deliberately defeat the division of matrimonial property. In the US, property transfers made within one year of the bankruptcy filing can be recovered by trustees. Any property transferred for less than assumed fair value may be challenged for up to six years.

read more »

Last week, I discussed the role of parents in divorces of adult children. Now I want to look at the consequences of senior divorces on their adult children and grandchildren.

When Grandma or Grandpa decide to divorce, adult children tend to side with the abandoned parent. When this happens, grandchildren follow the cues of their parents, resulting in estrangement from one grandparent. Adult children have the burden of explaining the divorce to their own children who can worry that their parents will also separate.

Grandparents don't want to become distant from their grandchildren, but family separations do occur. In an article I was reading, one 12-year-old wondered if she would be seeing her Granddad anymore. The answer? "Yes, but not with Grandma." It was awkward for her when Granddad came over since she was closer to her grandmother.

One daughter, angry that her father left her mother, experienced "horror" at meeting his new "companion." Children also wonder if their potential inheritance will be lost to a stranger. Divorcing seniors divide family loyalties, with adult children caught in the middle.

In one family, a grandmother refused to attend the christening of her grandchild because her son had invited her ex-husband's new partner. The son found himself in a no-win situation.

Just as parents of adult divorcing children need to stay neutral and build good fences, there are rules for adult children to follow when their parents divorce.

1. Allow yourself to grieve over your parents' divorce.
2. Let your parents know how you feel to avoid anger from surfacing later.
3. Assure your children they will still see their grandparents.
4. Don't take sides — stay clear and neutral.
5. Don't try to mother or smother either parent with caring advice.

read more »

Divorced couples in Australia are grumbling over the government's next stage of child support laws. Starting July 1, 2008, child support payments will no longer be calculated as a percentage of the non-custodial parent's income. Instead they will be based upon the combined adjusted income of both parents.

In addition, the new payment formula will take into account the amount of time each parent has custody of the children. The government's goal is to get the non-custodial parents, usually fathers, to spend more time with their children. If they have the children one or two nights a week, they will enjoy a reduction in support payments.

This should be a positive enticement, but it's threatening for the custodial parent, who may end up with less money.

Mothers' groups are annoyed and displeased. They believe this arrangement will create a division between parents if support is dependent on the time parents spend with children. Some custodial women believe they will be short-changed.

It's estimated that that the new formula will mean a reduction in payments for about 60 percent of non-custodial parents. It seems fair that both parents have an obligation to support their children. By taking into account the parents' total income and factoring in the actual costs of raising children, Australia is trying to adopt an enlightened approach.

Custodial parents, having the main daily and financial child raising duties, need extra funds to compensate for this burden. Australian law does adjust child-rearing cost figures as children reach the age of twelve, when costs increase.

Fathers' groups are still not content, claiming the present system is too harsh, often leaving them with little money to provide for a new family or to live on themselves. This may be true, but divorce is never going to be easy nor satisfy all sides.

read more »

A conflict between military personnel and their ex-spouses may be brewing over retirement payments. At the Pentagon's recent briefing on the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA), there was demand for reform.

USFSPA, enacted in 1982, allows state courts to divide military retirement as property in divorce settlements. For example, ex-spouses married for 20 years or more can be awarded up to 50% of the former spouses pension for life, or until they remarry. If there were child support or alimony court orders, the ex could enjoy as much as 65% of the military pension.

Congress intended to protect former spouses — chiefly women — from being "dumped." It was thought military wives could not easily establish careers and work on their own retirement, since they moved frequently due to thier husband's military career. Times have changed now, and military wives can work and earn pensions.

USFSPA gives state courts authority to distribute retirement pay, classified as both property and income. Spouses often end up with a substantial share of the ex's retirement. This is especially true in the case of short-term marriages.

Some of the proposed reforms include:

read more »

Financial experts suggest that the biggest economic burden from divorce falls on women and children. On average, after a divorce they suffer a 45% reduction in standard of living.

At this time of great emotional pain, making ends meet becomes a daunting task. I've put together a few strategies for money management and living within a budget for all the women out there facing the post-divorce financial crunch.

Changing your lifestyle isn't easy, but if you keep these tips in mind, you can survive post-divorce financial troubles. Don't let yourself and your family become part of the rising debt statistics — manage your money wisely.

Create a Budget:

1. List predictable amounts and sources of income. If employed, use your take-home pay.
2. Record your monthly recurring expenses: rent/mortgage, utilities, food, medical, insurances, transportation, car payment, credit cards, telephone, cable, internet, education, clothing, charity, gifts, misc.
3. For three months, record all of your expenditures — this helps you know where your money is going.
4. If you have more expenses than income, adjustments will have to be made.
5. The final divorce decree should have allocated debt responsibility. Include your share of payments in the budget.

Trim Expenses:

read more »

First Wives World readers going through a split may find information from a tax attorney who specializes in divorce very helpful. Her tips, detailing how divorce can affect your income tax, appeared in the (Lancaster, Pa.) Intelligencer Journal.

Keep in mind that each year, December 31 is "D Day," or the date determining your marital status for income tax purposes. If by December 31 you have a final divorce decree, you can file as "single" or as "head of household."

If your divorce isn't final by the last day of December, you may continue to file jointly or married, filing separately. Joint filing will result in lower taxes but there's a downside, because you remain liable for your spouse's taxes if he/she doesn't pay. IRS rules are a bit complicated but we'll try to simplify them here:

For head of household, there are three requirements:

1. During the year, you've paid for more than half of your home's upkeep.
2. The home was your and your children's principal home for more than half the year.
3. Your spouse hasn't lived in the home for six months.

Dependent exemptions:

1. You can receive $3,400 for each child but which parent can claim dependency exemption?
2. Dependency exemption can't be split; the custodial parent where the child lives more than half the year usually gets the exemption where both parents support the child.
3. An agreement should be made as to which parent will claim the dependency exemption.
4. The custodial parent can release the exemption to the non-custodial parent.
5. Where custody hasn't been determined, the parent who pays the majority of the child's expenses and has physical custody for the majority of the year, may claim the exemption.

Child tax credit:

read more »