Happy Christmas, War is Over

Source:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cJOm72QDDA

The Stigma Of The Never-Married Man

It's 11 a.m. on Sunday, a time that during your single days was reserved for sex or the gym. But for your newly grown-up, coupled-up crowd it means . . . brunch. Now that most of your friends are over 35 and some have children, this kids-'n'-coffee routine is beginning to feel pleasantly familiar. Until he shows up—the guy who's never been married. He's late, fresh from the gym, and accompanied by a woman who's about the same age and build as the aspiring-actress waitress.

You used to envy this man. Sitting there with his hand on a 23-year-old's thigh while he sips his latte, he makes your banana-pancake domestic life feel lame. But lately that guy's beginning to seem—to you, your friends, and your wife—well, kind of creepy. His brazen rejection of the life stage that most of his peers have gotten to is starting to make it look like there's something wrong with him.

Joe (who asked that only his first name be used), a 39-year-old union organizer in New York who's never been married, has been getting disapproving looks from his friends ever since he turned 30. "There is nothing like a group of married people—especially with kids—when you come into their circle with a younger, thin woman," he says. "It's a terrible reaction."

"These guys get labeled playboy, loser, commitment-phobe," says Carl Weisman, author of So Why Have You Never Been Married? According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, in 1980 only 6 percent of men between 40 and 44 had never been married; in 2008 it was 16 percent. But even though there are more of them around, men with long-term single status still have a hard time explaining their situation to potential dates, who see a guy entering middle age without ever having been married as damaged goods. In fact, a man whose marriage failed spectacularly tends to arouse less suspicion than a straight, still-single 41-year-old. "If he's over 40, you would hope that he's divorced," says Janis Spindel, a high-end matchmaker in New York who gets calls from hundreds of single women asking for setups. Evidence that even unmarried men in their mid-thirties are suspect is in her fee structure: The up-front charge for guys under 35 is $25,000; for those 35-plus it's $50,000.

If you ask a guy in his late thirties or early forties why he isn't married, he'll have his answer—you could call it his defense—ready. For some, the rationale is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Joe tends to date women younger than he, who are less likely to want to settle down than those his own age. "I would still like to have kids," he says. "But if I date someone who's 40, it's going to be chaos, a lot of pressure if we want kids—because we have to start that immediately, and even then you're not guaranteed."

Travis, 37, is a vow-averse management consultant in Baltimore whose singlehood is regarded with bemusement by his friends' wives because he has a 24-year-old girlfriend and takes trips to Vegas twice a year with married buddies. "Travis likes being spontaneous, doing new things," his friend Toni, a 33-year-old stay-at-home mom, says. "He has the misconception that if you're married it's a ball and chain." Besides, Toni adds, Travis "is the most socially skilled person I've ever met. He has no problem picking up the best-looking girl in the room." For anyone with that much game, being bonded to one person for life would be like losing a huge part of his identity. "I'm just not ready," Travis says. "A lot of people want to get married and are looking—I'm not." He holds that his approach to life reflects the way most men feel, and that the pent-up frustration of his married friends only confirms this. "They're the bad influences, and they're the ones who are married. Going out with me is an excuse to get crazy again," he says. "Some of them take off their wedding rings at bars just to talk to girls and flirt."

In fact, seeing friends' marriages fail can make never-wed guys more gun-shy. Which brings us to another stereotype: that these guys are afraid of being saddled with a less-than-perfect match. Eric Mark, 41, a partner at a national consulting firm in Los Angeles who last year was the best man at a friend's second nuptials (after having been a guest at the first), estimates that 70 to 75 percent of the weddings he's attended have resulted in broken marriages. Mark, like a lot of unmarried guys past 40, says that anecdotal evidence like that should be a satisfactory explanation for why he's still single. Why hustle down the aisle if you'll just end up single again at 45? But Mark's real problem may be his hustling. A peek at his BlackBerry calendar reveals he barely has enough free time to wink at a hot woman—let alone go on a date. He travels 30 to 50 times a year for his job, does pro bono work, and performs stand-up comedy at L.A. clubs. "I've spread myself so thin it makes me question how I can have a social life at all, work on existing relationships, let alone start a new one," Mark says. His friend Louisa, 37, says it's not time that's the issue; it's pickiness. "Eric has a very specific idea of what he likes," she says. His ideal partner is smart, compassionate, and well-educated and has a sense of humor. "And looks like Kate Beckinsale in The Last Days of Disco," Mark says.

This kind of overreaching is typical of the unmarried guy in his early forties, who tends to be convinced that nothing is good enough for him—that the perfect partner isn't right around the corner.

If the fortysomething unmarried isn't written off as being overly fussy or just plain weird, there is another label that he can find himself tagged with: gay. Travis, who is often teasingly called a diva by those close to him, recounts how five or six years ago a female friend said, "I really want to talk to you. Are you gay?" He laughs. "I was like, 'No,' and she's probably apologized for it 10 times since." Being an unmarried straight guy isn't exactly a career enhancer, either. Travis left a job where his lifestyle didn't fit the company culture. "I used to work for a commercial bank that was very conservative," he says. "They expect the country club, and taking customers and their wives out. That would be very awkward, because I certainly wouldn't be doing that."

Maybe some men know themselves too well to ever commit to a banana-pancake lifestyle. And maybe they don't deserve to be subjected to judgmental looks, because the kind of honesty that prevents them from entering a relationship just for the sake of it is the unmarried fortysomething's saving grace. Weisman believes that instead of looking askance at the perennially unmarried man, society should applaud him—even the cad. "The only thing worse than a playboy who refuses to commit is a playboy who gets married," he says.

Source:- http://www.details.com/story/stigma-of-the-never-married-man

                             

                                                     

6 Reasons Not to Get Married

Photo: Fanatic Studio/Getty Images

1. Because Not-Married Doesn't Mean All Alone

If you're married, it's generally assumed you'll always have somebody—for better or worse. But I'd just like to say that when you're not married, you'll also always have somebody for better or worse, somebody to count on, love, laugh with, fight with, miss, confide in and rely on. Because being not-married doesn't mean you're alone. It means you're living your life with friends, lovers, sisters, brothers, neighbors and co-workers. You're just not living with a spouse. Maybe you're dating. Maybe you're in a relationship for two years, then in another for five years. Maybe you're like me: in a relationship for a decade and aiming for life. Maybe you opt for no romantic partner at all. Instead you connect with friends over big pots of soup and crusty bread, go on road trips and encounter strangers, work for social causes, swim in the ocean, play the violin in an amateur string quartet. You don't need to be married to have all the things marriage is supposed to give you—a life rich with experience and intimacy. 

2. Because Love Is a Mystery...

And marriage, by definition, is a contract, plain and simple. I neither want nor need my love defined in business or legal terms. The beauty of love is that it's undefined to begin with—and always changing. 

3. Because Real Security Comes from Being Known for Who You Are and Cared For No Matter What

Upsetting stuff in life happens, and marriage doesn't stop it. Security, on the other hand, makes those rough times endurable. I get mine from my children, every time they crack me up by serenading our mutt with their improvised blues songs. I get it from my partner, every time he reads my mind and knows I'm craving a late-night snack of kettle-cooked potato chips—and then whips out a package he just happened to buy on his way home from work. I get it from my best friend, every time she senses I'm burnt out and takes me kayaking or mails me a poem. Feeling known and adored by the people around you—be they lovers or co-workers or chums—provides the greatest security of all. And you don't need a spouse to rely on it.

Source:- http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Reasons-Not-to-Get-Married-Leah-Hager-Cohen

                                                  

10 Reasons It's Totally Fine To Never Get Married

Joe McBride via Getty Images
It's a situation so many young adults will experience at some point in their lives: All your friends and acquaintances seem to be getting married, and you still can't figure out how to get dressed up like a big kid for their weddings. Sure, some people view their young peers' marriages as happy, normal events. But if you feel a little left in the dust when it comes to the marriage thing, you're not only alone -- in fact, you've got more company than ever. A study from the National Marriage Project found that more and more young adults today are delaying marriage because they see it as a capstone that comes after achieving one's life goals -- professional and otherwise.

And younger generations aren't the only ones staying single. According to the U.S. Census, the number of couples aged 50 and over who simply live together but are not married rose from 1.2 million in 2000 to 2.8 million people in 2010. Whether you're young or old, it is OK -- in some cases, even beneficial -- to never get married. Here are 10 valid reasons that remaining unhitched could actually leave you better off financially, mentally and even physically.

1. Most people aren't in a hurry to get married anymore.

According to Pew statistics, back in the early 1980s, the median age for marriage was 25 for men and 22 for women. But in 2011, the median ages for first marriages hit all-time highs of 29 for men and 27 for women. The report credits this change to, among other things, the fact that couples no longer feel the need to be married to become parents and the "competition from other lifestyles," like living alone or living with partners. So, there's no need to stress about not getting married -- everyone else is staying single too.

2. In fact, many people feel there aren't many advantages to being married.

A 2010 Pew survey states that, by and large, single people do not feel married people have many advantages in terms of a "fulfilling sex life, being financially secure, finding happiness and having social status." And 24 percent of those who do feel marriage makes a positive difference in life say that when it comes to work, getting hitched can significantly hinder one's chance at getting ahead in one's career.

3. For men, being married could be connected to being overweight.

It's a tired cliché that women feel they can "let themselves go" once they get married, but a recent study published in the journal Families, Systems & Health shows that men are more likely to be the heavier ones in a marriage. After monitoring the eating habits, physical activity and the weights of 2,300 young men in the Midwest, married men were 25 percent more likely to be overweight than men who were single or in a committed relationship. And according to the study, about 60 percent of married men were overweight compared to about 40 percent of married women.

4. Marriage can present a slew of financial problems.

Many older people are choosing to live together and not get married due to financial reasons. In some states, laws require those in a marriage to be responsible for their spouse's debt, and for the elderly, that could mean a variety of expensive medical bills. And depending on what state you live in, nursing home fees can cost more than $14,000 a month -- money that some elderly people might like to see go to their children or grandchildren.

Another point: Getting married can cause a single parent to lose student aid for their child. Mark Kantrowitz, senior vice president of Edvisors Network, explained to The New York Times a scenario in which a parent makes $50,000 a year and has a kid at college receiving $20,000 in grants. If that parent gets remarried, he or she could stand to lose up to $3,000 in aid per every $10,000 of annual income that the new stepparent contributes.

5. Marriage can seem like an outdated institution, and some people just don't want to fit into that mold.

When The Guardian interviewed a group of millennials about their thoughts on marriage, many had a dismal outlook. Peter, a 25-year-old from New York City, said he was not getting married. "Marriage is a conservative institution that organizes child-rearing and defines commitment, relationship and love," he said. "In the United States' current social climate, such a metric is quite popular, and therefore, relevant. However, marriage is expensive and likely to fail."

This sentiment has become more apparent as some gay couples who now have the choice to marry decide not to. Elizabeth Wood, a 77-year-old lesbian, told The New York Times that as a gay person, she's always felt like a "quasi-outlaw" and that taking on an age-old tradition like marriage would be forsaking her lifelong "edgy nonconformist streak."

6. Getting married can put your friendships at risk.

While this probably applies more to folks with mostly single friends, many people sense strains in their friendships after they get married. In a New York magazine piece, Amy Sohn highlights the ways some couples lose interest in their social lives after getting married:

"Ever since I got married, my friends have treated me like I contracted a communicable disease. The dinner invites stopped, and the late-night phone calls, and then I started hearing of hot rooftop parties to which I hadn’t been invited. Of course, I changed a little, too. Without an incentive to man-hunt, I was less interested in going to parties and bars."

And wedding planner Sandy Malone opined in a Huffington Post blog that people tend to lose at least one close friend after getting married, as a husband or wife fills that role. When someone spends every waking hour with their spouse, that can lead to neglecting the other people in their life. Which brings us to our next point...

7. Marriage can lead to the risky habit of relying on one individual for every emotional need.

Bella DePaulo, a social psychologist and author of "Singled Out: How Singles are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After," told The Huffington Post that many married couples make the mistake of turning their spouse into a "Sex and Everything Else Partner." They look to them for all sources of contentment, like "companionship, intimacy, caring, friendship, advice, the sharing of the tasks and finances of household and family, and just about everything else." This creates an unrealistic "cultural fantasy" that ultimately results in disappointment and unhappiness.

"One of the things that is so interesting about this is that it is typically seen as a good and romantic thing," says DePaulo. "Think of all the popular songs with lyrics like 'you are my everything.' There is little recognition of the risks of putting all of your relationship capital into just one stock -- your partner."

8. These days, a happy marriage requires a serious commitment of time and energy that can be hard to maintain.

Eli J. Finkel, a psychological researcher who studies human relationships, concludes that in marriages today, "individuals who can invest enough time and energy in their partnership are seeing unprecedented benefits." And how much is enough time? According to sociologists Jeffrey Dew and W. Bradford Wilcox, married couples who spend time alone talking or doing an activity together at least once a week were 3.5 times more likely to be happier than those who did not.

Seems pretty easy to achieve, except for the fact that most Americans are extremely busy. Dew also reported that among married couples without children, time spent with each other's spouse declined from 35 hours to 26 each week. Much of this was due to each person needing (or wanting) to spend more time at work. And those with children saw a decrease of 13 hours per week to nine, likely due to an increase in time spent with their children.

The fact that good marriages require more time and effort than ever is further validated by the differing divorce rates between wealthy couples and their less affluent counterparts. Studies show that lower-income couples get divorced more, and part of the blame lays in those couples' lack of resources, time and otherwise, says Frankel.

9. And, as dim as it sounds, plenty of marriages in this country end up in a divorce anyway.

For almost every couple, with marriage comes the potential for divorce. And divorces can be tricky and very expensive. In a Pew Research study conducted on 122 people who lived with a partner in Columbus, Ohio, 67 percent of middle-class participants said despite being excited about marriage, they worried about "the social, legal, emotional and economic consequences of divorce."

And some divorce statistics in the United States make it seem pretty grim for those who believe that marriages will last forever. It's estimated that about 40-50 percent of first marriages and 60 percent of second marriages will end in divorce. However, research on this varies. The CDC writes that the chance "of a first marriage reaching its 20th anniversary was 52% for women and 56% for men in 2006 to 2010," and this stays consistent with divorce trends through the past three decades. Also, it seems that the younger you get married, the more likely you are to get a divorce. The estimated average age for a divorce today is 30 years old.

10. Plus, there's a good alternative to marriage. It's called a civil union or a domestic partnership.

If you want to form a meaningful (and official) bond with your significant other, but you just don't like the idea and practice of marriage, you always have the option of entering a civil union or a domestic partnership. While these are mostly popular with gay couples, straight couples often have these options as well. For example, when Illinois passed its civil union bill in 2010, state Rep. Greg Harris (D), the bill's chief sponsor, made sure that heterosexual couples were able to have access to the option. And civil unions could also help senior citizens greatly. By opting into a civil union instead of remarrying, they can hold onto their survivor's benefits from Social Security or pension benefits.

There are some restrictions though, based on where in America you live. Right now, only Colorado, Hawaii, and Illinois offer civil unions, which provide state-level spousal rights to both straight and gay couples. New Jersey offers the same deal, but only to same-sex couples. Nevada, Oregon and Washington offer all unmarried couples the option of domestic partnership which gives them "nearly all state-level spousal rights," and Maine, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia offer domestic partnerships with "some state-level spousal rights" to unmarried couples. Ultimately, the beauty of a civil union or domestic partnership is that it can offer both straight and gay couples the benefits that traditionally married couples receive without having to actually get married, an act that some may find "patriarchal" and "anachronistic."

Source:- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/14/reasons-not-to-get-married_n_5274911.html

9 Signs You Are Married To A Commitmentphobe

One of the most common misconceptions about men with commitment issues is that they don't commit and would never get married. Au contraire. In fact, even the most commitmentphobic guys DO, in fact, walk down the aisle. And for the women who marry them, this is a nightmare of near epic proportion.

Imagine being married to someone who refuses to make decisions or can't fully engage with you as his wife. Sound awful? For many women, it's reality.

"One would assume that when someone gets married, the person gives all of himself or herself both physically and emotionally," says Dr. Ruth Ouzts Moore, a licensed professional counselor and faculty member at Walden University. "However, the giving of oneself fully in a marital commitment means making oneself vulnerable. The person has to love completely and trust completely, or the act of marriage is frightening and uncomfortable."

If it sounds terrible, it's because it is. We talked to experts and gathered 9 signs your husband might be a commitmentphobe.

1.) He rarely initiates sex. Sex, at its best, is an expression of the love between two people. When you are in love, it is also an expression of commitment and can bring up intense feelings. A person with commitment issues will avoid having that connection.

2.) He doesn't communicate appropriately. If it's been years since your spouse last expressed his feelings toward you, he may have some commitment issues. My husband was with a girl for four years before me without saying "I love you." Guess what? He never wanted to commit to her. Don't be that girl. A commitmentphobic husband may also hold in his feelings until he explodes.

"They may conceal their emotions until they can’t hold them in any longer," says Dr. Moore. "Once they express hurt, anger, excitement, or any emotion, they have trouble holding back. Thus, their emotional reactions may seem extreme to their spouses."

3.) The future is vague. Does he have a five-year plan? Does it include you?

"Because individuals with commitment phobias live in a place of doubt and mistrust, it is hard to discuss the future," says Dr. Moore. "Talking about the future means making an informal commitment."

4.) He is STILL confused about his career. Not everyone knows what they want to be at 18. That's what college is for. Heck, some people don't even know then. You WANT a man who explores his world and is looking for his passion. But if he's still highly dissatisfied into his 30s and 40s, you might be looking at something else.

"He may be a hard worker and great at what he does, but he typically doubts that the position is the best fit," explains Dr. Moore. "Thus, he may never truly be happy with his career. It isn’t uncommon for him to be passed over for promotions, because others appear more enthusiastic about the position."

5.) Quality time is lacking. If your husband retreats into himself every night and you rarely spend time together -- even if it's just watching TV and cuddling -- he might have some issues.

"Even if the couple spends time together (e.g goes out to dinner, watches a movie, etc.), there is a lack of interaction or connection when they are together," says Dr. Moore. "It’s as if they go through the motions, but they don’t really connect.

6.) He had commitment fears early in the relationship. If you had to strong arm him into marrying you, then rest assured, he probably has some of that STILL there. Watch out, says Dr. Moore.

7.) He doesn't like to make plans. Honey, do you want to go to Mike and Dave's house Saturday night? It's a simple question, right? For a commitmentphobic man, it's something else entirely.

"If your guy never wants to make a definite date and he doesn't seem to think about the future, he's probably just using you as "reserve" and not really interested (either in you or in commitment)," says "Dr. Romance" Tina B. Tessina, Ph.D., a psychotherapist and the author of Money, Sex, and Kids: Stop Fighting About the Three Things That Can Ruin Your Marriage.

8.) They give ALL their love to the kids (or pets). There is nothing on this Earth that makes me happier than seeing my husband dote on our children. I love our family more than anything, and seeing him be such a great dad is absolutely beautiful. But I also know how much he loves me. He tells me all the time with both words and actions. If he were a commitmentphobe? Not so much.

"Children and animals are safe attachments. Children and pets are not likely to abandon, betray, or inflict emotional harm on a parent," says Dr. Moore. "But the person can’t give the same type of attention or develop a similar connection with the spouse."

9.) They have addictions. Whether they are a workaholic, alcoholic, or sexaholic, people with commitment issues do things to an extreme, according to Dr. Moore.

"Such extreme behaviors occupy a good bit of their time and energy," she says. That way, "they don’t have to connect with their spouse."

The fact is, just because a person donned a tux and said "I do" does not mean they actually got over their fear of commitment. For the wife, this can be one of the most painful things to realize and come to terms with, because it creeps into every corner of the marriage and makes her feel incredibly lonely.

"Marriage counseling can be helpful," says Dr. Moore. "But the person with the commitmentphobia usually needs additional individual therapy to address the unresolved grief issues that exist due to their painful relationship history."

Do you think your spouse has commitment issues?

Source:- http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/178744/signs_husband_is_commitmentphobe?utm_source=yourtango.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_module

                                               

As Of Today, I Am Divorced

Here are the facts:

One, I have been living apart from my now ex-husband for two full years.  Therefore, I’ve had some time to get used to this single life and single parenting thing.

And two, I was served with a petition for dissolution of marriage eleven months ago.  Therefore, I’ve had some time to get used to the idea of, you know, actually being divorced.

Except, here’s the thing.  I did not see this coming.  I know, only a crazy person wouldn’t actually expect divorce papers to not end in divorce, but that’s where I’ve been living apparently (in crazy town).

This is really happening

I stood in front of a judge  and listened to questions being answered, my legs barely able to hold me up.  And then I heard this question from the other attorney, being asked of my ex-husband, “Is your marriage over?”

Without hesitation, the reply came, “Yes.”

Seriously, in my head, I was screaming, “It is?!?” Because I honestly, deep down, I thought the trigger would never be pulled on this.  I woke up this morning in utter shock that I am actually divorced.  I had to say it out loud to sort of remind myself.  I am divorced.

So what all this means is, yes, I’ve gotten a bit used to parts of this new life of mine, but oh my word, seeing as I didn’t think it was going to actually happen, I’m so far from being healed and ready for my next chapter in life that it’s not even funny.

Though I was kicking myself for being so sad yesterday because it felt like I should be two years in already, it’s actually just day one for a huge part of my heart that did not expect this to be my life.

Two years in, I’m just getting started

I have felt a thousand and one emotions:  anxiety, sorrow, rejection, doubt, abandonment and even gratitude for the good things that came from our marriage.  I’ve cried through my wedding DVD and laughed through tears over sweet love letters from our college days.

This divorce – this forever severing as the decree calls it – will be my largest regret and sadness for the rest of my life, no matter what else my life has for me.  I will walk through the rest of my days holding in one hand “we should have never married” while balancing “but I wouldn’t trade my children or my friends or anything good that came from our marriage” in the other.  It’s all a mystery.  One I will grasp lightly and gratefully, knowing I’ll never fully understand the why’s behind it all.

There are so many moments I would change, so many words I would give anything to take back.  So many tears I wished I hadn’t cried, so many actions I wished I would’ve taken.

And yet, here I am.  Not one moment can be changed.  My fragile, now unraveled and undone, marriage forms a huge part of who I am.  I can’t go back.  And I wouldn’t go back.

For today, and a few todays to come I’m sure, I’ll look over my shoulder.  I’ll wonder.  I’ll cry.  I’ll be sad and walk slow and sigh.  I might conjure up a smile or two thinking on the good things.

Today I am requesting permission to be sad for a while…from myself, from God, from the people in my life. But then there will be a time, sooner rather than later I hope, when I will know it’s time to move completely on.  Today is not that day.

The ink is dry on paper.  But the ink is not yet dry on my heart.  That’s going to take a while.  Gratefully, I’ve got the time – all the time in the world.  I’ve got God, my patient, gentle Healer who will hold my hand, walk alongside me, make all things new, and promises – absolutely promises – to bring beauty from these ashes.

Source:- http://powertochange.com/sex-love/as-of-today-i-am-divorced/

K v K (Ancillary Relief: Prenuptial Agreement) [2003] 1 FLR 120

Here is a bit of case law for you so you can see what went on in a real case.
===========================

This is an application by Mrs K (to whom I shall refer as the "Wife") for full ancillary relief arising upon the breakdown of her marriage to Mr K (to whom I shall refer as the "Husband"). The marriage took place on the 10th December 1969 and lasted, therefore, in excess of 30 years.

B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE BARON D.B.E.
____________________

Between:

	K	Petitioner
	- and -
	K	Respondent

____________________

N Mostyn Q.C and R Carew Pole (instructed by Messrs Sears Tooth) for the Petitioner
B Blair Q.C. and R Todd (instructed by Messrs Mischon de Reya) for the Respondent
Hearing dates : 9th – 17th May 2005 
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

Mrs Justice Baron:
1. This is an application by Mrs K (to whom I shall refer as the "Wife") for full ancillary relief arising upon the breakdown of her marriage to Mr K (to whom I shall refer as the "Husband"). The marriage took place on the 10th December 1969 and lasted, therefore, in excess of 30 years.
The Children of the family
2. The parties have two daughters namely L who was born on the 24th October 1975 and J who was born on the 14th March 1979. Both women are independent. L is married to a successful businessman and has 3 young children, whilst J (who has been plagued with emotional problems) is now in full time employment. The parties generously provided each girl with a home of their own. Thus, L has a property in North London which is worth in excess of £500,000 (and is subject to a mortgage of some £170,000) whilst J has a mortgage-free flat in Knightsbridge which is worth in excess of £300,000. The daughters are also the owners of a French company which owns a flat in the South of France. This property is worth some €1,200,000 (£827,500 at a conversion rate of €1.45) and is subject to a loan in favour of the parties worth £512,000 inclusive of compound interest at 6%. The net equity in the property (after the payment of costs of sale and French taxes) is about £200,000 (perhaps a little more). Prima facie, therefore, the girls' interest totals some £100,000 each. For much of the trial the true ownership of this apartment was a matter of heated debate. It was the Wife's case that, in reality, the flat belonged to the Husband and had only been placed in the girls' names for tax reasons. She pointed to the following facts in support of her contention (i) the property had been found and chosen by the parties are their holiday home; (ii) they had always used it as their home without reference to the girls; (iii) the Husband had a power of attorney which enabled him to do as he wished with the premises; (iv) there were many documents in which he (and others) referred to the apartment as belonging to him and (v) such was his character that, even if the girls were legal owners, the Husband would extract the funds from them as soon as this case was over. The Husband asserted that (i) the flat had been given to the girls from the outset subject to his ability, pursuant to the power of attorney, to use/operate it for as long as wished and (ii) that the Wife had been aware of these facts from the outset. The girls were drawn into this litigation as a result of these polarised positions. In 2004 in accordance with their Mother's wishes they attended an independent solicitor, who wrote a letter in which they acknowledged that the flat had been placed in their names only for tax reasons. However shortly before this trial, in accordance with their father's wishes, they signed affidavits in which they recanted their previous positions and stated that they regarded the South of France property as belonging to them absolutely. They were due to attend Court to be cross examined on the veracity of their
statements.
3. This vignette (about a relatively small amount of capital in the context of these parties' wealth) indicates the ferocity with which this litigation has been fought and how it has caused a haemorrhage in family relationships. I cannot begin to imagine how much money and legal energy has been spent in pursuit of this issue.
4. The documents proved that, from the outset, the children had been the legal owners of the apartment. Mr Mostyn Q.C. (on behalf of the Wife) asserted that, although there was no application to set aside the original transaction, I should ride roughshod over this point and deal with the flat as if it belonged to the Husband. He pointed to the case of J v V 2004 1FLR 1042(the facts of which are wholly different from this case). On an analysis of the documents, I was clear that the most that these parents had was the right to (i) repayment of the loan and (ii) use the flat for so long as they wished. Moreover, it is not for the Court to override established legal rights unless the individuals who hold them are joined to the proceedings and are represented. The prospect of these "children" having to give evidence (one of whom is emotionally vulnerable) seemed to me to be undesirable if it could be avoided. Consequently, I suggested that the parties might consider a formula whereby the property was sold, the loan repaid with the net equity being paid to the daughters upon the basis that would undertake that were they to decide to make funds available to one parent then they would make the exact same sum available to the other. Eventually, this formula was agreed and I will accept the formal undertakings from L and J.
5. There seemed to be a tacit assumption at the beginning of this case that L's outstanding mortgage should be deducted from the parties' assets before division. But this does not seem appropriate in the overall circumstances of this case and I decline to follow that route. L can use her share of the proceeds of sale of the South of France property to reduce her mortgage if she wishes. As the daughters appear to have "sided" with their Father more recently, and subject to any further submissions from Counsel, I intend to provide that the Wife's 50% share of the loan will be paid to her from other assets – so as to enable the Husband (who still holds a power of attorney) and the girls to sell the French property in their own time.
6. The Husband has asserted that he "owes" his daughters a significant amount of capital because, when his father died (intestate), he promised that these funds would be paid to the girls when they were 30 years old. That inheritance came into being in about 1989 and was intermingled with the Husband's own funds. By 1999 it was said to be worth some £117,000 and it was suggested by the Husband that it should be paid to the girls. I reject this argument. These young women have been treated very generously to date and the capital which they now have represents such sum as may have been due from their paternal grandfather.
The Open Positions
7. The Wife seeks an equal division of the assets which have been accumulated during this lengthy marriage. Until very recently this point was not conceded by the Husband as he sought a 55-45% split in his favour. The basis for this differential being his alleged wealth at the commencement of the marriage. Commendably, this point was not pursued before me and it was conceded that the assets should be divided equally.
8. However, despite this concession, the trial has taken some 5 days because there has been a huge and acrimonious dispute about the true level of the assets. >
9. Overall, this litigation has lasted a number of years and was originally due to be heard in June 2004. But, at the last minute, it had to be adjourned because the Husband was suffering from a psychiatric condition which rendered him unfit to give instructions to his legal team. The opening submissions prepared by Mr Mostyn Q.C. for that Hearing state, and I quote: "On W's case the assets amount to some £6.2 million. There is no earned income in this case: the parties are living on their capital. H has set up a network of trusts and companies to hold his wealth and to disguise his ownership". Despite this earlier assertion in 2004, Mr Mostyn Q.C. has sought to show that the assets should now be regarded as greatly in excess of this sum because (i) monies have gone missing from the sale of the former matrimonial home in Spain; (ii) monies have gone missing from the sale of a flat in Basil Street, London and (iii) the Husband has spent excessive sums – particularly in relation to consorting with other women/prostitutes. He also made the point that some $600,000 had been drawn in cash by the Husband after June 2004 for which there seemed to be little proper explanation, at least so far as some $425,000 was concerned. >
10. Mr Blair Q.C. informed me that he was surprised by these assertions (save for those in relation to monies spent on other women and recent spending) as they had never been made in the written documentation supplied. He was highly critical of what he termed these "Sunday" musings by which he meant assertions which had only arisen in the course of final weekend preparation. I accept that the submissions were not advertised but, nevertheless, I thought it right to permit the investigation to proceed.
>
11. This marriage has been unhappy for some considerable period of time. The first breakdown came in October 1998, when the Wife filed a petition for divorce and launched an application for ancillary relief. In consequence, the Husband filed a Form E. On that occasion, although a Decree Nisi was pronounced, the parties reconciled and the decree was set aside by consent. >
The Form E discrepancy
12. The rapprochement was short lived and by 2002 the Wife had issued a second set of proceedings. In the light of this the Husband filed a second Form E. A comparison of the two documents shows a huge disparity. >
13. The table shows >

	Form E 31 Mar 99	Form E 21 Mar 03
FMH in Spain	285,000
Warehouse in Spain	45,000	37,525
Basil Street property	405,000
FMH in Eaton Sq	1,900,000
Bank accounts	169,958	1,758
Ogier Nominees portfolio	3,623,377	413,712
Insurance claim	9,189
Chattels	41,600	183,000
Cash	3,000
Liabilities
credit cards	(1,146)	(28,713)
money owed to children	(117,100)	(172,516)
debt due to Zhejiang	(223,600)	(225,876)
Spanish customs fines	(307,370)	(447,370)
building costs Eaton sq	(200,000)
Anticipated Spanish fine	(312,000)	(228,759)
Mortgage LK Trust		(306,000)
Hambros loan		(200,000)
"RS" Trust charges		(21,067)
Coutts o/d		(20,468)
Sundry debts		(41,157)
Spanish back taxes		(1,031,418)
"RT" Trust	0
"RS" Trust		0
TOTAL	5,317,908	(2,084,349)

14. The reason for this surprising difference was the failure by the Husband (and his then legal team) to include properties/a portfolio supposedly held in an entity called the Royal Star Trust. Although the existence of the assets/properties was set out within the body of the Form E, a nil value was ascribed to them. In addition huge debts were posited as due. This defective presentation is most regrettable because, even if assets had been held through numerous entities, the Courts of the Family Division are accustomed to piercing the corporate/trust veil where the Husband is, in reality, the alter ego of the relevant entities. In this case the presentation is even more surprising because it is now clear that at the time the second Form E was sworn the Husband was the sole legal and beneficial owner of all the relevant assets because none had been placed in this new trust structure. >

There is a lot, lot more to this and you can read it here:- http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/Case-Law/Ancillary-Relief/-K-v-K-2005.html