Opinions please

karlitob

Hi all,

Any comments or opinions would be obliged.


Hypothetical situation but alas a common one.

Man and Woman separate.
Man moves in with another woman - she's on a widowers pension
Woman stays at home with 2 children.
There was formerly a safety order against the man due to emotional abuse of the woman. ie not the kids. An arrest and night in gaol has occurred in the past.
Maintenance is being paid weekly.
Mortgage is being paid fully by the man monthly - he is working.
Woman is on long-term illness benefit.
Both parties went to family court after the arrest. There was an 'undertaking' to the court that the above situation would continue.
The man has now unilaterally stopped paying the mortgage (its in both the man and womans name). He wishes to pay money to the new woman for bed and board. The mortgage is in one months arrears.

Any observations would be welcome.

Can the other woman still receive a widowers pension?
Is the husband obliged to continue paying the mortgage?
Can the woman and children lose their home?
Is the 'undertaking' legally binding?
What does an 'undertaking' actually mean?
- I would presume its a pragmatic approach for both parties to come to an agreement to settle outstanding differences
Is the ultimate end point here a date in family court?
Should the bank be informed of the situation?

Thanks

Farcear

Can the other woman still receive a widowers pension?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/death_related_benefits/widows_contrib_pension.html


Can the woman and children lose their home?

That's an issue for the Bank really. Also, it's not technically the children's home -- their names likely not on the title deed!


Is the husband obliged to continue paying the mortgage?
Is the 'undertaking' legally binding?
What does an 'undertaking' actually mean?

An undertaking is a promise to the court. It is not as good as a court order but is enforceable.


I would presume its a pragmatic approach for both parties to come to an agreement to settle outstanding differences
Is the ultimate end point here a date in family court?
Should the bank be informed of the situation?

Court order would help regularise the position.

Bank would likely come asking questions soon anyway and it would certainly want to know if there was pending legal action over the house.

I would note that the court would take into account that fact that man has woman #2 to support in looking at financial issues.

karlitob

Farcear wrote: »

Can the other woman still receive a widowers pension?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/death_related_benefits/widows_contrib_pension.html

Thank you.

Farcear wrote: »

Can the woman and children lose their home?

That's an issue for the Bank really. Also, it's not technically the children's home -- their names likely not on the title deed!

Point taken but I would imagine that any court proceedings, if things ever got that far, would naturally take into account the welfare of the children. If the bank repossessed the house would they have to vacate immediately or could they wait until social housing was made available.

Farcear wrote: »

Is the husband obliged to continue paying the mortgage?
Is the 'undertaking' legally binding?
What does an 'undertaking' actually mean?

An undertaking is a promise to the court. It is not as good as a court order but is enforceable

Are these undertakings published online? What is the penalty for non-compliance?

Farcear wrote: »

I would presume its a pragmatic approach for both parties to come to an agreement to settle outstanding differences
Is the ultimate end point here a date in family court?
Should the bank be informed of the situation?

Court order would help regularise the position.

Bank would likely come asking questions soon anyway and it would certainly want to know if there was pending legal action over the house.

I would note that the court would take into account that fact that man has woman #2 to support in looking at financial issues.

If that woman had her own means...and the man was simply paying rent....would the welfare of the children including paying the mortgage be paramount?

Thanks again for your thoughts.

What would your opinion be on - is the man obliged to continue to pay the mortgage even if he does not live there but gave an undertaking?

karlitob

Any more thoughts on this please. Thanks

coylemj

Why is the other woman's widow's pension an issue and can you tell us if it an occupational pension, a state non-contributory (i.e. means tested) or contributory pension or a combination of more than one of these?

By 'occupational pension' I mean a pension being paid by a pension fund of which her deceased husband was a member.

karlitob

coylemj wrote: »

Why is the other woman's widow's pension an issue and can you tell us if it an occupational pension, a state non-contributory (i.e. means tested) or contributory pension or a combination of more than one of these?

By 'occupational pension' I mean a pension being paid by a pension fund of which her deceased husband was a member.

Hi

I guess the other womans pension is important if he stops paying a mortgage to the detriment of his childrens welfare but pays money to another woman while she is in receipt of state contributory pension. So she may lose this pension.

Can the husband take a unilateral decision without considering the welfare of his children
Can the husband renege on a court 'undertaking'?
What rights do the children have in this instance?

Tom Young

Thread reported. Breach of charter. OP: You came with a hypothetical that got so detailed that it couldn't be hypothetical. If this is a real scenario, carry your questions to a legal professional.