Will try to keep this brief, but in summary, I am negotiating with my ex's solicitor about what should be included in the application for consent orders. I have a debt of about $60-70k to my solicitor for parenting matters, whereas my understanding is that my ex has paid off her solicitor in full already.
If I include my debt, my net assets effectively are negative and I owe more than I own. This obviously affects how my financial situation is viewed in the application, particularly given the agreement in principle that I've reached with my ex about the financial separation which is quite generous toward her (we each keep our own super entitlements, even though she has far more super than I do). Her solicitor has said that if I insist on including my legal debt outstanding in parenting matters, they will include the legal debt that my ex has incurred but already paid in full.
Is this fair or commonplace? I can see both sides to this. If you used money to purchase say a car, you would still be left with an asset that has a value. However, if you used money to pay for legal assistance, you have no asset to show for it but you've nonetheless received a benefit from it. On the other hand, a debt is a debt, and my debt reflects the reality of my current financial situation, whereas she does not have a debt because she has a higher income than me and has been able to pay it off.
So effectively, while we may have in theory have paid a similar amount for our legal assistance for the parenting matter (it's unclear but I suspect my solicitor did a lot more work, given I was the applicant and all progress in parenting matters was like quicksand where my ex resisted at every stage until the last moment), the reality is that I have a debt and she doesn't. Should expenses incurred and paid for count towards the settlement? In that case, surely the differential in incomes should be factored in too? I would estimate that in the almost 4 years since we separated, she has earned $250k more than I have.
If I include my debt, my net assets effectively are negative and I owe more than I own. This obviously affects how my financial situation is viewed in the application, particularly given the agreement in principle that I've reached with my ex about the financial separation which is quite generous toward her (we each keep our own super entitlements, even though she has far more super than I do). Her solicitor has said that if I insist on including my legal debt outstanding in parenting matters, they will include the legal debt that my ex has incurred but already paid in full.
Is this fair or commonplace? I can see both sides to this. If you used money to purchase say a car, you would still be left with an asset that has a value. However, if you used money to pay for legal assistance, you have no asset to show for it but you've nonetheless received a benefit from it. On the other hand, a debt is a debt, and my debt reflects the reality of my current financial situation, whereas she does not have a debt because she has a higher income than me and has been able to pay it off.
So effectively, while we may have in theory have paid a similar amount for our legal assistance for the parenting matter (it's unclear but I suspect my solicitor did a lot more work, given I was the applicant and all progress in parenting matters was like quicksand where my ex resisted at every stage until the last moment), the reality is that I have a debt and she doesn't. Should expenses incurred and paid for count towards the settlement? In that case, surely the differential in incomes should be factored in too? I would estimate that in the almost 4 years since we separated, she has earned $250k more than I have.