A Ponzi Scheme, a Closed Business, and a Marriage That Had Run Its Course
When my wife and I decided to end our marriage, we genuinely wanted to do it the right way — no expensive lawyers, no bitterness, just a fair split and a clean start for both of us and our two teenagers. What complicated everything was the debt. Most of it was in my name. And my wife didn't feel it was hers to share.
The debt hadn't come from recklessness. A few years earlier, an accountant had introduced us to what he called a revenue-generating scheme. It paid out regularly for the first seven or eight months — long enough for us to believe in it, long enough to put in more of our savings. Then, almost overnight, the payments stopped. When we pressed for answers, it became clear it had been a Ponzi scheme all along. I felt angry and humiliated. We had been completely taken in.
Around the same time, I had to close my printing business. The income I had relied on was gone. With savings wiped out and no business revenue, we started using credit cards to cover everyday expenses. The debt grew steadily — and because most of it had been taken out in my name, I was legally responsible for all of it, even though it had been spent on the family.
When we decided to divorce, we agreed on the basics: sell the family home, divide the proceeds, and the children would live primarily with their mother. But when I raised the debt, my wife's position was that it wasn't hers to pay. Legally, she was right. Morally, I disagreed. We needed advice that could hold both of those things at once — the legal reality and what felt fair — while also taking into account the house sale, the children, and both of our futures.
The Outcome in brief
Adviser: Priti Shah · Referred by BNI — Business Network International
Mr. BB came to us carrying debt that wasn't entirely of his own making, facing a divorce he hadn't wanted to complicate with conflict, and uncertain whether fairness was even achievable. What he needed wasn't just a debt solution — he needed someone willing to sit in the room with both him and his partner and help them find a path neither had been able to see on their own. That's what we did.
In a similar situation? We can help.
If you're dealing with debt alongside a divorce — or trying to work out what's fair when debt is in one name but was shared — we're here to talk it through. There's no charge for the first conversation.
The work behind the outcome
By bringing both Mr. BB and Mrs. BB into the same conversation — and speaking with transparency and impartiality to both of them — we were able to structure a settlement that worked for each party. Neither walked away with everything they wanted. Both walked away with something they could accept.
The starting point in divorce law for dividing assets and liabilities is an equal split. In this case, the couple's only significant asset was the family home — there were no savings or pensions. The debts, including those in Mr. BB's name, were debts of the marriage. In principle, both parties shared moral responsibility for them, even though legally Mr. BB alone was liable.
One straightforward option was to sell the house, clear every debt in full — including a meaningful personal loan from Mr. BB's sister who had helped the family through a difficult period — and divide whatever remained. The problem was that after paying all the creditors, each spouse would have been left with roughly 10% of the equity. Neither had enough to start again from that position.
We met with both Mr. BB and Mrs. BB together. Priti spoke plainly to both: about what the law said, what the numbers meant, and what a workable settlement might look like. The agreement we helped structure gave Mrs. BB 70% of the sale proceeds — she was the primary carer for two teenagers and needed a stable base. From her portion, half was set aside to repay Mr. BB's sister, which was important to Mr. BB and which both parties accepted. Mr. BB received 30% of the proceeds but retained full legal responsibility for the remaining debts.
We advised Mr. BB that a creditor arrangement would be recorded on his credit file for six years, but that this would not prevent him from renting, and that given his currently unstable income and the need to keep the house sale proceeds accessible for priority obligations, it was the most suitable route for managing what remained. He went ahead on that basis.
By bringing both Mr. BB and Mrs. BB into the same conversation — and speaking with transparency and impartiality to both of them — we were able to structure a settlement that worked for each party. Neither walked away with everything they wanted. Both walked away with something they could accept.