Is your ex hiding 資産s in a 離婚? STEPHEN GOLD explains the most ありふれた secrets and lies

• e-mail

Stephen Gold:??Are you sitting? Stand by for a shock. いつかs, one or both parties in a 離婚 保留する the 存在 of 資産s or underestimate their value

Stephen Gold is a retired 裁判官 and author who has written popular series for This is Money on how to be a successful executor, 令状ing a will, 破産, 消費者 権利s and 合法的な 論争s.

In part one of his 最新の guide, he explained the ground 支配するs 法廷，裁判所s use to decide how 財政／金融s are 分裂（する） in a divorce, and in part two 年金 株ing, belated 使用／適用s, remarriage and 税金.

Today, he looks at how to reach an 協定, and what happens when one ex tries to cheat the other out of their fair 株 of 結婚の／夫婦の 資産s.

'We've agreed. We've agreed.' Parties do 現実に agree on 財政上の 治療（薬）s. A lot of the time.

The 協定 may be reached without a 法廷，裁判所 使用／適用 存在 made or it may be reached at any 行う／開催する／段階 of 法廷，裁判所 訴訟／進行s.

There are three 行う／開催する／段階s to all but the most straightforward 事例／患者s:

- A first 任命 at which a 裁判官 will give procedural directions;

- A 財政上の 論争 決意／決議 任命 at which the 裁判官 will bang the parties' 長，率いるs together (but ever so gently to 避ける fractures);

- And a 十分な-blown contested 審理，公聴会 where the parties are still at war which could take 18 months or more to come about, from when the 事例／患者 kicked off so plenty of time for 交渉, 申し込む／申し出 and 反対する-申し込む／申し出 and changes of mind. The 協定 could come as late as when the 法廷，裁判所 勧める calls the parties into 法廷，裁判所 for the third 行う／開催する／段階.

Along the way, the parties will have been encouraged to 試みる／企てる to agree through some 非，不，無-法廷，裁判所 論争 決意／決議.

介入 is the most ありふれた form and, in fact, the party 適用するing for 財政上の 治療（薬）s must 一般に …に出席する a 会合 giving them （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） about 介入 and whether it would be appropriate before starting the 使用／適用.

New 法律制定 （機の）カム into 軍隊 on 29 April 2024 which is 目的（とする）d at inducing a party who stubbornly 辞退するs to try 介入 to think again.

This is 達成するd by the 脅し of ordering them to 支払う／賃金 the other party's costs of the 訴訟／進行s on account of their 拒絶.

As it happens, costs ぼんやり現れる large in 交渉s. The general 支配する is that each party 支払う／賃金s their own costs in the world of 財政上の 治療（薬）s.

With lawyers in the 事例／患者 ? even taking advantage of the 'direct 接近' 計画／陰謀 under which a barrister 支持する can be engaged without the use of a solicitor ? the costs for all three 行う／開催する／段階s can be staggeringly high.

It is fair to point out though that where one 味方する cannot afford to 教える a lawyer, but the other party is 負担d, the 法廷，裁判所 can be asked to order the other party to stump up the money for their 対抗者's 合法的な 代表. It is called a '合法的な services order'.

Where, mercifully, the parties are agreed, they could get on and 器具／実施する the 協定 without any 関与 of the 法廷，裁判所.

Stephen Gold's popular guides?

How to be a successful executor and 勝利，勝つ 補償（金） from bungling banks and 商売／仕事s

Making a will may fill you with dread and nausea - but do it anyway

Going 破産者／倒産した can be the best escape from 負債

Your 権利s as a 消費者 - 含むing what happens if your 運送／保菌者 捕らえる、獲得する breaks

What to do if you get embroiled in a 合法的な 論争, and how to 避ける 潜在的に ruinous 法案s

'To hell with the 法廷，裁判所, to hell with the lawyers,' they 布告する. That would be 高度に dangerous, for a host of 推論する／理由s.

The chances are that the 協定 fails to cover every 詳細（に述べる） it would be wise to have covered.?

One party may decide they have done a bad 取引，協定 and want to 取り消す on the 協定 and 試みる／企てる to 説得する the 法廷，裁判所 to decide what 財政上の 治療（薬）s they should be 認めるd.

Or one of the parties may drag their feet in taking necessary steps to 器具／実施する the 協定 reached with the result that, without an order having been made, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to 強要する them to do so.

The 草案ing of an order 会社にする／組み込むing what has been agreed 要求するs 技術. It is for the parties to organise it. The 法廷，裁判所 will not 請け負う the 仕事.

I beg of you: don't do it without professional input.

Template orders can be 接近d by searching online for '基準 財政上の 治療（薬） orders' which will 論証する to parties that their 提案するd 協定 had overlooked a dozen or so points for which they should have 許すd.

There is also a template in my 調書をとる／予約する (see the box below) for the simplest of 事例／患者s if the parties きっぱりと 辞退する to 注意する my begging.

To keep 負かす／撃墜する the expense for that 草案ing 仕事, one of the parties could 教える a solicitor ? they might 株 the 法案 ? and the other go lawyerless.

Ideally, each party should have their own 独立した・無所属 合法的な advice. The same solicitor, or 会社／堅い, cannot usually 行為／法令／行動する for both 味方するs of a 論争 but it could be permitted with the 草案ing of the 同意 order where things are 比較して straightforward, and the 財政／金融s are modest.

Most solicitors, however, will 拒絶する／低下する to 行為／法令／行動する for b oth.

You may have heard of さまざまな 非，不，無-lawyer 商売／仕事s which 申し込む／申し出 to help both parties in 草案ing the 同意 order and 文書s to go with it. The High 法廷，裁判所 has 支配するd this to be permissible in an uncomplicated 事例／患者.

Where there is little or nothing to be 株d out and each party has 完全にする and utter 信用 in the other (so why the 決裂／故障 then?!) and are fully aware of their 合法的な 権利s and the 関わりあい／含蓄s, these 商売／仕事s may have a value when a solicitor would be more expensive, and they do not favour the idea of 取り組むing the 仕事 themselves.

Some of these 商売／仕事s are better at it than others.

Once the 草案 order has been 用意が出来ている と一緒に a concise 定める／命ずるd form setting out the 財政／金融s of the parties, it will go to the 法廷，裁判所 and it should be unnecessary for either 味方する to have to turn up at 法廷，裁判所 to support it.

Just because the 草案 order has been agreed, the 裁判官 who considers it is not bound to 認可する it.?

The 裁判官's 職業 is to 確実にする that it 明確に 表明するs what both parties ーするつもりであるd, they understand what it means and it is fair to them both. If the 裁判官 is not 満足させるd on these points, they will raise queries or 示唆する 改正s.

One of my 職業s as a 裁判官 was to decide whether or not to 認可する these 草案 orders. I looked at several thousand of them in my time.

In around one in every three, I had to query or put 今後 changes to make them fair or comprehensible.

Secrets and lies: There are ways and means of getting to the truth if an ex-spouse is hiding some of their 資産s

Getting to the truth

Are you sitting comfortably? Stand by for a shock.

いつかs, one or both of the parties 保留する the 存在 of 資産s from the 法廷，裁判所 and the other of them or underestimate their value.

There are ways and means, however, of getting to the truth.

In a contested 財政上の 治療（薬）s 事例／患者, each 味方する will have been 要求するd to 完全にする the most exhaustive 財政上の 声明 by way of what is called Form E which doesn't stand for Edith or Edgar but slots nicely between Forms D and F.

Think of your 税金 return for agony and treble it.?

さまざまな copy 文書s should …を伴って the form 含むing 声明s of bank and building society accounts for the previous 12 months.

A meticulous 熟考する／考慮する of these 声明s may lead to the 設立 of hidden 資産s. Why was £10,000 transferred out to Dodgy Bank plc one week before the form was 完全にするd when that particular 財政上の 会・原則 has not been について言及するd どこかよそで on the form?

What's the mont hly direct debit for £150 all about? Why isn't there any について言及する of a 年金 from their 15 years of 雇用 as a 商品／必需品s 仲買人?

Each party may 準備する a questionnaire setting out the その上の （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） and 文書s about what has been 公表する／暴露するd and what has not been 公表する／暴露するd.

This questionnaire ? not the occasion for a fishing 演習 but for 本物の questions which are 関連した to the 問題／発行するs - will be considered at the first 任命 (see above) ? and the 裁判官 will order 合法的 and 関連した questions to be answered and 文書s to be 供給（する）d within a 始める，決める period.

失敗 to 従う could lead to 監禁，拘置 or the 法廷，裁判所 製図／抽選 an 逆の inference when it comes to decide whether the failing party has lied.

Where it can be 論証するd that some of what is （人命などを）奪う，主張するd in the Form E is 高度に 怪しげな, the 裁判官 may be 説得するd to 要求する the 供給（する） of 声明s going 支援する longer than 12 months and it is not uncommon for an order to be made for credit and 蓄える／店 card 声明s for say 12 months to be 手渡すd over.

These could show a style and 基準 of living inconsistent with someone on 全世界の／万国共通の credit.

Conned!

If the 法廷，裁判所 has made an order for 財政上の 治療（薬）s, even with the parties' 協定, and it is subsequently discovered that one of them has been 有罪の of 詐欺, secreting 資産s or income or some misrepresentation, the conned party may be able to get the 法廷，裁判所 to upset the 初めの order.

Retired 裁判官 and writer Stephen Gold?

Ex-裁判官 Stephen Gold's The Return of Breaking 法律, published by Bath Publishing, is an irreverent guide to 合法的な 権利s and winning in 法廷，裁判所 or losing 井戸／弁護士席.?

It gives more （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） on the topics covered in this 一連の articles and is 十分な of tips and templates.?

の中で the 非常に／多数の other areas featured are 権利s for cohabitees, 後継するing on small （人命などを）奪う，主張するs, making a will, 戦う／戦いing with 販売人s, creditors, 国内の abusers, 貸す人s and landlords - and how Stephen 対処するd as lawyer to the Kray Twins.?

What is complained of must have made a 構成要素 difference to the 結果. It is 必須の that the 事柄 is returned to 法廷，裁判所 expeditiously once the truth has come out.

The 法廷，裁判所 may also 引き裂く up the 初めの order if some supervening event has （判決などを）下すd it 不公平な.

For this to happen, the event must have occurred soon after the order was made ? probably only a few months afterwards ? and the 法廷，裁判所 challenge should be 急速な／放蕩な.

In the 主要な 事例／患者 on the 支配する, a husband agreed to 移転 the family home to the wife in return for him 存在 relieved of the 義務 to 支払う／賃金 her 維持／整備.

Tragically, just five weeks later, the wife killed the parties' two children and then committed 自殺.?

The wife's mother resisted the husband's 試みる／企てる at getting the order overturned. She failed and the husband 後継するd.

A remarriage by one party soon after the order which did make a difference and which the other party had not 熟視する／熟考するd, might be 十分な to 達成する a setting aside of the order.

And so might a remarriage about which the husband had kept 静かな. In the Form E, each party is 特に asked whether they are living with a new partner and whether they ーするつもりである to do so within the に引き続いて six months.

You might have thought that the 逆の 財政上の 衝撃 of Covid 19 on one of the parties would have been a supervening event that 正当化するd an order 存在 始める，決める aside. 式のs, the 法廷，裁判所s have so far been 気が進まない to 引き裂く up on this basis.

The 衝撃 would need to have been 相当な and unforeseen and unforeseeable by the other party, given the 行う／開催する／段階 the pandemic had reached when the order was made.

But even if the order was not 始める，決める aside, it s variation by 減ずるing 義務s under it might 井戸／弁護士席 be 許すd.

In one 事例／患者 in which the husband was 不成功の with his 始める，決める aside 使用／適用, the 裁判官 commented in relation to a possible variation of the order that the wife was not 免疫の from having to 株 some of the 苦痛.

Mistake by a party could also 正当化する an order 存在 始める，決める aside. Not 平易な. It would have to be shown that the mistaken party could not have discovered the true 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s by 演習ing 予定 diligence.

IN PART FOUR... Stephen Gold explains pre-nuptial 協定s.