Home » Forums

[MSE Lawrence]

Poll between 12-18 Feb 2007: What’s a fair divorce settlement?

With a number of high-profile cases flooding through the courts, here’s a sample scenario, designed to raise a number of issues…

The Scenario: Janet and John have been married six years and had two children. Sadly they no longer get on and so agree to a divorce - no third parties are involved. They met the year after John sold his business for £10 million (Janet had limited assets), and have since lived together without either working. John has agreed to provide maintenance and costs for the children already.

Which of the following is closest to your idea of a fair settlement from John to Janet?

Please indicate your gender when voting (to see if that makes a difference):

A. I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get nothing - 7% (623 votes)
B.I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 10% - 9% (834 votes)
C.I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 20% - 9% (770 votes)
D.I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 30% - 8% (697 votes)
E.I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 40% - 2% (213 votes)
F.I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 50% - 9% (831 votes)
G.I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get more than 50% - 1% (105 votes)
H.I’m a MAN. Janet should get nothing - 13% (1174 votes)
I.I’m a MAN. Janet should get 10% - 15% (1356 votes)
J.I’m a MAN. Janet should get 20% - 12% (1018 votes)
K.I’m a MAN. Janet should get 30% - 6% (557 votes)
L.I’m a MAN. Janet should get 40% - 2% (143 votes)
M.I’m a MAN. Janet should get 50% - 5% (456 votes)
N.I’m a MAN. Janet should get more than 50% - 0% (29 votes)

This vote has now ended, but you can still click reply to discuss below.

Enter e-mail to get it:   View Past Emails, FAQ Privacy Policy

[killer133]

Hi

this is interesting, but I wonder if the responses would differ if the genders were the other way around? If Janet had made the millions, sold the business, married John and had two children, how would the voting go then?

Personally, whichever way around it is, I don't think they should get more than 10% - from the scenario description they've done almost nothing to contribute to the success of the business.

Any other ideas anyone?

Killer

[funkey_monkey]

Killer, I agree with you. The fact that swung it for me was the declaration that he had already agreed to provide maintenance and costs for the chikdren.

Even 10% is £1million - much more than she probably would earn so that is a signifiant amount for her. Plus as you said, she had NO CONTRIBUTION to his wealth so therefore, for her to get anything should be seen as generous.

And yes, if it was the other way around I would have voted that the man get 10% also and no more.

It might have been a more interesting debate if she had contributed...

[srvr]

Hi all

I see this disturbing popular result:

F. I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 50%
11% (19 votes)
and those who didn't select this still expected quite a lot of coin.

Why are woman surprised that men these days are scared of loosing their shirt to some gold digging.

I went with 10% as that's a huge pile of money anyway plus Janet gets costs for the kids and maintenance. Janet has not done badly considering she hasn't contributed to the wealth at all.

Before you say, if it was reversed, or even if i was Janet (as a man) i would be embarrassed to ask for more than 10% in these circumstances.

[srvr]

I was just planning to meet the girl of my dreams fall in love and live hapily ever after.

Now i think ill just qualify that at little:

1) Meet girl of my dreams
2) Ensure her wage is near my own or greater
3) Establish she has assets equal to my own or greater
4) Establish that her potential inheritance is equal to my own or greater
5) Live Happily Ever after.

Are women really telling us men folk that they are all Heather Mills McCartney in disguise? If you are, expect us to keep running scared.

[Gemmzie]

I voted for "D. I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 30%" - purely because she has the children. My perfect answer was that the children should get 30% - which should be for the children.

[BuddyBonthenet]

I voted F. I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 50%.

I'm married and don't have children (through choice) and I think the woman should be able to bring up their children in the style they have been brought up in so far. Why should she look like the poor relation to their children as she brings them up alone? They should both be able to start their new lives with a level playing field financially.

[srvr]

John has agreed to provide maintenance and costs for the children already.

So the children are already covered and Janet gets a further bung on top. So how much she should get of the lump sum is purely for her.

The children cant be used as an argument in this scenario.

[LuciferTDark]

I personally wouldn't give her more than 10%, it's not like she helped him to make the money, just helped to spend it.

[johncolescarr]

I voted for 10%, since £1m is likely to cover loss of earnings for 6 years at least. I disagree with the comment that 30% is fair because of the kids since a generous maintenance alllowance from a £10million fortune is likely to keep the kids in the luxury they are accoustomed to anyway. I don't think that the kids should be getting a Rolls Royce each to drive them to school. If the father decides to help them later in life, to set up their own businesses for example, then this would happen whether they were together or not.

[jamtart6]

if the maintenance thing hadn't been sorted out, I'd have said that whoever kept the children should have had a chunk of the fortune (either the bloke with 100%) or mother with 10%...1 million quid is enough to survive on until she gets a job...many people do it for much much much less!! I vote janet gets zilch, zip, nada!

If they had both contributed to the business then halvey halveys!

[Mozette]

I went for B and would do the same if the roles were reversed. Had they not married she/they would likely have made different choices, so I think to get a small amount is fair.
Though if it were me, I wouldn't take anything, just what was fair for the children. I look after myself, and never have nor will expect anyone else to do it for me.

[Dr Baird]

Originally Posted by srvr

I was just planning to meet the girl of my dreams fall in love and live hapily ever after.

Now i think ill just qualify that at little:

1) Meet girl of my dreams
2) Ensure her wage is near my own or greater
3) Establish she has assets equal to my own or greater
4) Establish that her potential inheritance is equal to my own or greater
5) Live Happily Ever after.

Are women really telling us men folk that they are all Heather Mills McCartney in disguise? If you are, expect us to keep running scared.

When/if I get married a prenuptial will be a cert.

[srvr]

When/if I get married a prenuptial will be a cert.

Prenups are not legally binding in the UK, they are taken as a guide but essentially they are not worth the paper they are written on.

If you married in the US or else where and got a prenup, they could and would still choose to the very generous UK divorce courts.

Your only solution to avoiding the problem is to make sure that your intended betrothed is your finanical / assest equal or better so ifyou do split it will be equal as you will get half of hers and she half of yours i.e. a score draw. Of course if she is better off than you then your going to benefit from the divorce but marrying down is not common traditionally for women.

Its all just a bit cold and calculating for my liking. It would be nice if prenups were legal in the UK but they also kill the romance too.

[stogiebear]

He made his fortune before they met. The beeatch female gets nothing.

[liz545]

I voted D. I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 30%, although I think 25% should probably be reasonable. If the woman is the primary carer for the children, then it's reasonable to award her enough money to set up a home and look after the children until they're old enough for her to return to work; and it may not be easy for her to find employment at first, having not had a job in 6 years and having two young children. I agree that since Janet isn't responsible for helping John build his fortune, she isn't entitled to a large cut of it, but some recognition should be made for her role raising the children; and if she receives nothing from the divorce that will surely only result in bitterness between them, and she'll be more likely to try and prevent John from seeing the kids.

[mollie27]

I also voted D. I'm a Woman. I agree with liz545 after 6 years out work it won't be easy to find a job and she has lost those 6 years in terms of career advancement.

They only reason I didn't vote that for the 50% option is because John has already agreed to provide for the kids.

srvr; what you say about a pre-nup might welll be true however there is another option: DON'T GET MARRIED.

Marriage to me represents sharing everything equally, what happened before the marriage is no longer relevant, you get married and plan to share the rest of your lives together, and if one party is good enough to share the house, fortune etc. with during the marriage then they are good enough to share it with should the marriage fail.

Maybe if more guys thought with their heads rather than their pants they wouldn't get married in the first place (or would ensure only they got married to THE ONE so divorce would never be an issue) and then at least we could skip all the whinging about having to share when they get divorced.....

Incidentally with regards to the gold digger comment, that works both ways, I have seen more than a few men (admittedly those of the older generations) that have gotten divorced or widowed that positively hunt for an instant replacement because someone is needed to cook, clean, wash and of course warm the bed, so gold diggers some women might be but at least you can argue that is because they seek financial security for themselves and their future children, what excuse do the men in the above scenario have? Lazyness and selfish pursuit of pleasure?

[legolas]

I am a man voted she should get 10%.

In an ideal world when a relationship breaks down the respective parties should equally share the results of their union, be that children or assets (from the date of the marriage).

This scenario doesn't state whether the man is having his children 50% of the time, or not at all and so is very simplistic.

If he has earned a further £1 million (in interest) in their six years together then she should be entitled to £500000, as proceeds 'earned' during the marriage.

Otherwise 10% is a lot of money as 'compensation' for her trauma of six years marriage to a millionaire.

Just wondering where his 'compensation' is???????

[PerlOfWisdom]

I'm a man and I voted 50% for the following reasons:

An average man will usually have to give his ex 50%, leaving him struggling to start again. She is awarded this not because the courts want to be fair but so that she can't claim benefits - saving money for the government.

If an average man has to suffer so much, why should a wealthy man get away with it so lightly - he will still have ample money to live for the rest of his life.

It would be saying that there should be one law for the wealthy and another for the rest of us.

[Danny G]

I choose K.
The women should get something nothin too much that she shouldn't deserve.