Tag Archives: Finance

Bloody mindedness

When people are hurt, they often like to hurt back.

An eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth and all that. If s/he left me to go off with that bastard/bitch, they must suffer for it. They will suffer, I’ll make sure of it, even if I lose out too, it will be worth it!  Does anyone ever say that in mediation? Rarely if ever, but they may think it and take up inexplicable negotiating positions or prolong arguments over nothing. They can be very bloody minded over sorting the simplest things out. There are reasons for this, such as they cannot let go of the relationship, cannot leave the connection with their ex, they are desperate to ‘win’ so have to keep fighting, they want to have the ‘last word’ and/or their fury fuels the conflict and then the conflict finds an outlet in:

  • Quarrelsome solicitors’ letters setting out endless arguments about anything and everything, much of may be it immaterial to settling the important issues like who gets the house or is it sold, what happens about pensions and the maintenance? If people fight over silly things you know you are in trouble, so the food mixer or kettle is an indication they are dredging the bottom of the barrel and this is caused by their feelings, not the importance of the bottom of the barrel.
  • Putting forward extremely unfair positions that would make the other person lose out massively (punishment, ‘make them suffer’)
  • And worst of all, arguing through the children, using them as weapons and instruments of revenge, getting them ‘onside’ and trying to turn them against their other parent.
"Divorce Your Loved One With Dignity" Bob Willoughby © , Frank Sinatra, on the Warner Brothers set of Marriage On The Rocks, 1965

Bob Willoughby © Frank Sinatra, on the Warner Brothers set of Marriage On The Rocks, 1965

On the surface you have an argument, often translated into a legal narrative of this statute and these cases, versus a countering position and cases. That is the lawyers’ attempts to try and reduce the fighting into something logical, with rational arguments that can be explained and reasoned. Mostly the parties don’t give a damn about all that, what they mind about is getting back at the bastard/ bitch who has ruined their life. This isn’t every case by any means, but it is common enough to be classified as a type of case I think of as ‘Bloodymindedness’.

If you know someone who has embarked on a divorce in this manner and you really care about them, you won’t simply listen to their rantings, you’ll gently question some of their statements and turn some of their thoughts on their head. For example, you might ask what the costs of fighting have been so far and talk about the type of holiday, car or suchlike they could have bought for that instead. If they blame it all on the other person, you might ask them what they did to try to change the dynamic. If they have tried, and many will have done, you might observe it is very difficult to get two warring people to make peace simultaneously, as they often both try, but at different times and get a bad response.

The beauty of mediating your settlement, arrangements for the children, divorce, whatever, is you go off from your first session together with a shared action-plan and joint commitment to changing boundaries and behaving differently. You can develop functional separated boundaries, with some rules you put in place about what ever is causing difficulty. Solicitors’ letters will not accomplish that. Mediation can turn things around and put you on a better path, people need to understand about that possibility, because it is game changing, and thank goodness for it.

Think of it as an escape hatch from misery for families who are splitting up.

Financial Settlements on Family Breakdown – How to Get it Done.

Mediators and lawyers have their own role to play in helping you to reach decisions following on from your separation.  Most of the hard work is done by you both during the mediation sessions.  The two of you will discuss the issues that need to be resolved, with the help of the mediator.  The mediator is there to help you to communicate in a constructive way while your respective lawyers will help you individually by advising you about the proposals.   They can then translate the settlement proposals into a legally binding agreement or submit it to the court for the court’s approval.

An out of court settlement is something you often hear about.  It is a settlement that is often reached within the mediation process.  It can then be endorsed and approved by the court to make it legally binding.

two mannequins fighting over 100 dollars

For a financial settlement to be binding it is important that both of you disclose to each other your respective financial positions.   This would be the same whether your settlement was reached through mediation, through solicitors or through court.  You cannot come to an agreement if you don’t know what the assets and incomes are.  This process is called full financial disclosure.  You are then able to have discussions and negotiate a settlement   Even in court most settlements are reached through discussion and negotiation rather than the Judge making your decisions for you.  In mediation, you can go straight to those discussions after the financial disclosure stage, without waiting for the court to give you appointments and paying for costly court fees, and solicitors’ and barristers’ costs.

Just because you and your ex can’t communicate doesn’t mean that you have to go to court.  Mediation can help you look at how your relationship can be improved to enable you to resolve your issues, particularly communication.  You can become more co-operative and make your own decisions together.  The benefit of mediation is that it is the two of you who will be making the decisions about you and your children, rather than having a Judge decide what is best for your future.

Do you think that you will be better able to communicate if you have solicitors writing letters between you?  No, I suspect not too.  Often what you said and what you meant can get misunderstood or blurred by using a third party.  The advantage of mediation is that you are both putting forward your views and the other can listen and respond at the time, not 2 or 3 weeks later.  The mediator can help by translating and clarifying if necessary.  Then, in a constructive and problem-solving way you talk through the options and work out what is best for your separated family. Then you do it, job done!

Today’s Challenge: Describe the Benefits of Mediation and What it Does in Two Sentences?

On 22nd May about 150 mediators, judges of various flavours, policy makers and politicians, assembled at The Met in Leeds for the annual Civil Mediation Council (CMC) conference. (We will get to the challenge in a minute). The glitterati of the mediation profession were there, along with those members of the judiciary sympathetic to mediation as a means to resolve disputes. The message from On High was clear, the courts need more cases to settle and avoid trial, as the present demand for adjudication cannot be met, there are not enough courts or judges and there’s certainly not enough money.

Mediation is the most probable alternative to court. It saves time, money and stress, so why don’t people try to mediate before issuing court proceedings? There were many theories, but the most persuasive was that many people want to go to court because they believe the judge will agree with them, they will be vindicated, the ‘other side’ will lose, suffer and be humiliated. They will get what they want. Of course, they probably won’t get what they want, both sides feel the same and can’t both be right.  Also, the costs frequently exceed the value of the dispute by a considerable margin, so it ends up as a poor investment.  Though it’s questionable if applying to court can ever be regarded as an investment; an expensive gamble might be a more accurate description.

Most people wish they’d never started court proceedings long before they end, when everyone is just desperate for it to be over. By then if not before, mediation is usually the best way out and of course, we all know that very few cases go to full trial, so the revenge/ vindication sought is a satisfaction rarely achieved.

BoPN1PBIYAALo64b

We heard from Lord Faulks the government is committed to mediation and wishes to extend its use in the resolution of disputes.  Lord Justice Briggs said the same thing. Then we established that the Jackson reforms last year have not, in fact, increased the take up of mediation as much as expected, despite government policy and reform and the unarguable fact that many cases at court are simply in the wrong forum for sorting them out. People need help with resolution not help with fighting, however angry they feel – it is counter-intuitive. There were workshops examining online mediation, compulsory mediation, mediation in schools, mediation in the political process and ACAS. The constellation of experts assembled was inspiring.

Joshua Rosenberg (BBC legal commentator and expert) helpfully described what mediators should do to increase public awareness of mediation. He had done the training, saw what it could achieve and was all for it – but people don’t know what it can do for them or how it works. He thinks we need a two sentence description of the benefits of mediation and what it can do. Then people may better understand and try mediation, instead of litigating first and regretting it later. So – the challenge is to find two sentences describing mediation in such a way that ordinary people will know what it means. There follow some examples:-

  • Mediation reaches the parts of the dispute that court doesn’t and gives people more choices about their way forward that the Law. Mediation is fast, affordable and starts where you are to sort out disputes in ways acceptable to both of you, so you can move on
  • If you are in dispute resist the temptation to invest your time and money arguing why you are right and fighting, as in the end most people do a deal and the sooner the better.  By mediating first you can save the most time, money and stress. So start by seeing what you can agree in mediation rather than start with an expensive legal ritual that drives you poles apart.
  • When in dispute, think carefully about what you want to achieve. Grind your opponent into the ground? Hurt them like they hurt you? Or sort it out and move on with your life? Mediation lets you end it swiftly and cost effectively. The price of justice is an uncertain outcome at vast expense and with huge delays, the benefits of mediation are fast, affordable certainty and it’s over.  No brainer.

The problem is, these definitions come from a mediator – we thought it would be better if a non mediator writes  the 2 sentences. So, here’s the challenge – £100 voucher for the shop of your choice to the person who comes up with the best two sentence description of mediation. Closing date – 31st August 2014.

Fighting Over Nothing

When is disagreement about something and when is it about nothing?

Perhaps it may help to rephrase that… Often conflict causes disagreements about not very much or even nothing at all! The problem is the conflict, not the issue.  We see this all the time in mediation. It’s why mediation is so much better at resolving disputes than litigation. The legal system can only deal with the legal basis of disagreements, even if there isn’t really a legal basis, it cannot help with the non legal conflict drivers, even when that is the problem that needs sorting out.

Let’s look at a typical example. Two children are deeply jealous of their mother’s attention for the other child.  They grow up and courteously dislike each other. They always compete for parental time and attention and resent the time the mother spends with their sibling. If challenged they would deny this, but the conflict is deeply embedded in their sub conscious minds, it will never go away and informs all their exchanges in relation to their mother. That mother becomes ill and develops Dementia. One of them starts to look after her. The other has difficulty seeing the mother and is sometimes denied access. There are huge control issues and a legal dispute may well emerge. On the face of it that dispute will be about the Power of Attorney, who controls the mother’s money or makes decisions about her health and welfare. There may be a dispute about her jewellery all the terms of her Will, whether she had capacity to make the Will or Power of Attorney, particularly if it favours one sibling over the other. Was it fair, was it right or was undue influence brought to bear on the elderly parent?

In reality, assessing the capacity of someone with dementia is notoriously difficult, as it comes and goes. So legal proceedings on this can be fraught with difficulty and be a bit of a gamble. Also, the dispute originates in the sibling relationship and entrenched conflict. The legal dispute is an expression of that. Hence settling that litigation will be really hard, because it isn’t just about the legal rights and wrongs. Costs will mount and relationships worsen and all the time the cure would be mediation. Mediation is the medicine that reaches the parts litigation can’t reach. Mediation deals with the root cause, not the symptoms. Litigation in cases like this is akin to amputation for an infection. Treat the infection and you may well preserve something precious and save great suffering and stress. Litigate and the losses can be incalculable. It certainly rarely improves the situation!

shutterstock_181569293

It’s the same in the workplace, in the work team. If people can’t get along they quarrel and precious work time and energy is wasted in their conflict.  If the the conflict is bad enough then stalemate can result, paralysing your business. Yet the reason you may have recruited two very different people and asked them to work together may be good.  They may have a complimentary skills and you want to stop the conflict between them and harness their different skills to produce useful outcomes for your business. The legal remedy is disciplinary or grievance procedures and finally termination or redundancy. This is an incredibly expensive gamble and diverts you and your team from what you want to be doing – running the business. A workplace mediator can often help teams work together, solving your problem so amputation isn’t necessary.

So when you seem to have an intractable problem between people, ask yourself is it ‘them’ or the presenting issue? If you solve this issue, will there always be something else? Might a chat with a mediator be the most use to you?
You have nothing to lose and quite a lot to gain.

The Children and Families Act 2014 – Family Law is Changing

Heralded as the biggest change to the family law system in a generation, will today’s changes to the family legal system make any difference to real families? Certainly, shortening the time taken   for important cases about children in care to be decided by the courts will be a big improvement.  Children caught up in the care system were previously waiting over a year for their cases to be decided, which is far too long and very bad for those children’s happiness and life chances. The new time limit for a decision will be six months, a great improvement.

 

However, what about the majority of the families needing help sorting things out? For most families some of the changes are more apparent than real. Arguments over arrangements for the children are not likely to improve because people are supposed to avoid the words ‘residence’ and ‘contact’, just as they didn’t change when we swapped the words ‘custody’ and ‘access’ for ‘residence’ and ‘contact’. The issue of who the children live with when is still a thorny one and changing the words to ‘child arrangements’ makes little difference. Other than that, there is a change to a theoretical single family court, but again, this means that cases can be allocated to the county court where there are professional judges or the magistrates where there are lay (but trained) magistrates – but both will now be called the “Family Court”.  Will this make a huge material difference to court users given the decision-makers and buildings will be the same as before the name changed to “Family Court” remains to be seen!  There will still be the High Court for cases needed high court adjudication.  Some cases that would previously have been decided by a judge may be heard by a magistrate – but it will all be the “Family Court” so that’s all right then!

 

People who can afford it may feel increasingly inclined to pay for private adjudication by a family law expert in the field, to ensure the quality of the decision – this is called arbitration and might produce a dual system of private justice completely outside the state court system. It would save government money, but create a dual system for the haves and have-nots. There could be an issue over the quality of the decisions and interpretation of the law, if many complex and difficult cases are decided by non family law experts.

 

Against this background family mediation looks like a very sane and sensible option.  An experienced, qualified mediator helps a couple to make their own arrangements for their children and settle their own financial settlement.  The impartial mediator gives relevant legal information to help decision-making and the couple know what they are agreeing to. It is a fast affordable alternative to the vagaries of the court system and at least now people have to hear about mediation properly from a mediator.  Couples share the cost of the mediator and pay nothing if they qualify for legal aid, whereas there is no legal aid for most family law work any more, there is for family mediation. If couples don’t mediate they have to pay the whole costs of their separate lawyers, instead of share the cost of their mediation.  Before anyone can bring a court application they will mostly now have to hear about mediation before they can apply to court. This last change is one of the most sensible changes the new Act brings in and it is long overdue. Court fees are expensive and rising –  pointless if unnecessary. People will now be given a real choice and awareness of the options for sorting out their settlement and arrangements without using the conventional legal and court route. Mediation is the prime alternative and mediators can now explain it to couples properly, instead of people assuming it’s unsuitable for them or not even realising it exists and that legal aid still exists to help them mediate.

 

shutterstock_66786538b

 

The Children and Families Act comes into force on 22nd of April 2014

For the first time it requires would be applicants to court to hear about mediation and how it might be able to help them, before making their court application. This simply gives them a choice of court or mediation before they embark on the court route. As such it is a useful intervention. This meeting is fast becoming known as a ‘mediation awareness meeting’ – its formal name is the Mediation Intake Assessment Meeting or MIAM.  A qualified mediator will simply tell couples about mediation and the alternatives to court adjudication.
This is greatly needed, as put simply, if mediators don’t tell people about how mediation may help them, mostly people do not understand it and don’t try mediation. Before the compulsory referral to hear about mediation from a mediator in 1999, there were only a few hundred mediations a year. After legal aid applicants had to hear about mediation from a mediator in 1999, this rose to about 13,500 mediations a year and it has stayed about the same every year until last May, when all compulsory referrals to a mediator for mediation assessment stopped along with the abolition of legal aid for family cases. Then couples unaware of mediation simply went straight to court and the number of court applications has increased massively everywhere, with many fewer mediations taking place. The fact is, in many cases lawyers do not sell mediation; they are more likely to sell legal services and to negotiate the case in a conventional positional way. This increase in adversarial resolution is bad for families, turning them into opponents in what is often an expensive, long drawn out ping pong of letters and or court hearings.

 

Compulsory mediation awareness meetings do not mean compulsory mediation, but many people will choose to go on to mediate and save themselves and their families a great deal of time, money and avoidable stress. If some family lawyers don’t like it, and it is only some lawyers, we have to ask why are they so worried about people simply hearing what mediation has to offer? These people don’t have to mediate and no one is saying people should not hear about legal resolution methods. If people need to go to court, they can still go to court, if they want lawyers to write letters then they can pay for that, but a tiny proportion of cases do actually get decided by a judge, so deciding them even earlier in mediation seems like a good idea to most people.

 

The reality is that in most disputes over children, the worst thing that can happen to a family is a brutal fight over the children, replete with welfare reports, adversarial arguments and adjudication or shuttle diplomacy between lawyers at court, cobbling something together under immense pressure and making that into an order. A series of mediation sessions over a few weeks or months with changes being introduced and reviewed, improvements made and children’s views taken on board where possible, is just so much better for most families.

 

Where property and finance issues are concerned, mediation has a massively important role to play in resolving settlements fast and at proportionate cost. How much do you think should be spent on legal fees for resolving a financial settlement on divorce? Should it be 10% or 20% or some other proportion of the overall value of the family pot?  This is the thorny problem the courts are not addressing. There is a court rule that the legal costs must be proportionate to the value of a dispute. This is universally ignored, as it seems to convey no meaning to the judges or the legal representatives. It is common for the costs to be a third or half or even more of the value of the dispute – where is the sense in that? If you bear in mind that in most family cases, unless it’s a very short marriage or there’s a pre-nup., there is a starting point or yardstick of equal division of the assets, then the value of the dispute is probably no more than between 10% to 25% of the overall pot. Legal costs frequently exceed 10% to 25% of the value of the family pot. How can that to be regarded as proportionate to the value of the dispute? It isn’t proportionate at all.

 

So, in a nutshell, the changes with regard to compulsory mediation assessment meetings brought in by the Children and Families Act are mostly welcome and long overdue.  Compulsory mediation meetings before court applications can be made will enable a significant number of families to avoid court proceedings and expensive legal costs by choosing mediation, once they know how it can help them. Previously they often simply issued proceedings and the legal route was the default option. Now a real choice is being offered and it is up to mediators and lawyers alike to help couples make the best choice for their family, taking into account everything relevant to the family.  It is the couple that matters most and finding the best way forward for them, not what matters to the lawyer or the mediator – each trying to sell the service they prefer to sell. The family is at the heart of separation and divorce, how they sort out their arrangements, which process they use should be an informed decision they take and the advent of mediation assessment will help ensure public awareness of mediation when they need it most.  This is needed simply because without it as we have seen, people do not know about mediation or find out about it until it is too late.  There has to be a compulsory  mediation awareness stage  as once people have started going down the court route, mediation referral can be a bit late for many of them to gain the most benefit in terms of the expense, stress and delays of court proceedings.

Setting out the Finances

3 Easy steps to setting out the finances

  1. Honesty
  2. Form E
  3. Summary

If you are separating or divorcing, you will want to understand the legal framework relevant to your situation, but one cannot advise you until it is clear what assets there are.  So, any process to resolve a financial settlement on divorce starts with identifying then valuing the assets. You must supply information and paperwork showing the value of all the assets, the house, the savings, the debts and the value of the pensions and your income.   This is called ‘disclosure’ and the law says this has to be ‘full and frank.’

If you seek legal advice first, your lawyers will often complete disclosure for you – two of them preparing it for each of you then exchanging it and asking questions about anything unclear. If you mediate disclosure, then the mediator does the disclosure with you both together – this is quicker and costs less and again questions can be asked and answered.
The mediator can draft a summary of your financial information so you can take legal advice on options.

shutterstock_142814494

Honesty

It is not an option to decide an asset is out of it and does not need to be valued; no one can proceed on that basis.  Any agreement needs to be binding.  That either means a Separation Agreement or a Court Order in a divorce.  For these to be binding there has to have been full disclosure and, at Court a Judge has to have a Statement of Information with a complete summary of all the assets and what they are worth, nothing can be omitted, or the agreement could be overturned.

Form E

At Focus Mediation we will work with you so that your Form E (the form that your solicitors and the court would want to see) is complete. We go through the process of disclosure and produce figures to work from. This can be done by two solicitors over a few months (court proceedings take over a year), but in mediation you can each see and hear and understand the financial position at the same time and the mediator helps you with suggestions and information.

Open Financial Summary

The mediator as part of the mediation process will prepare a summary of your background, your family assets and income, which can be used as the foundation for your binding agreement. If you seek legal advice you can show this to your solicitor and ask for a realistic assessment of the likely range of possibilities at court. If you both do this and bring your advice to mediation, there should be an overlap where you can compromise. Your Focus mediator will help you both to focus on realistic, affordable and practical options, so that you can reach an acceptable outcome which meets your and the children’s needs for the future.

%d bloggers like this: