Wife entitled to 85% in split - correct?

chipsdog

My friend has been seeing this guy for the last 12 months, he doesn't live with his wife anymore but they are not divorced. He has been to get legal advice and the Solicitor has told him that if they get divorced the wife will be entitled to 85% of the business and 90% of the properties.

Details are - wife is 50% Director of the business where loans have been taken out on the 2 properties owned by them to buy out a previous partner. Wife has not worked, son is 18 years old, she has been paid a weekly allowance from the business for last 13 years.

The Solicitor has said that has she has supported him for their married life, joint signature for the loans she will be entitled to 85% of the business and 90% of the properties.

Is this correct? anyone else experienced this?

Any

What is going to be given as a reason for divorce? I believe that also makes difference - like if he was unfaithfull or something, or whether it's going to be mutual.

Mojisola

Don't know the answer to your question but I would be asking why when he has supported her for their married life and is joint signature for the loans, isn't he entitled to 85% of the business and 90% of the properties?

Dancing_Shoes

Not sure he was given the correct advice, was it a decent solicitor?
Normally they work from a 50/50 split as a base then work out what each party actually needs. The fact that she gave up work to raise their child would mean that her earning capability would not be as great as someone who had always worked therefore she may either be entitled to a higher percentage than 50% or spousal maintenance. If he has a lot to protect and he feels she will fight for more than he is willing to give he needs to get himself a very good solicitor. They will include any loans taken out aswell, it isn't just assets that get divided but as she doesn't work they may allocate some of her assets (whatever she gets awarded) to pay off the loans. I hope that helps, at the end of the day they will try and do what is fair on both parties

Pee

Just a thought here - does your friend think he might be lying to her, because it sounds to me like there is either a lot more to this than meets the eye, or the solicitor wasn't very good or he didn't understand what the solicitor said or he doesn't actually want to divorce his ex-wife for some reason and is using this as an excuse.. I hope that is not the case, but the starting point would be 50/50 and determined by children under 18, future earning ability and not bad behaviour or adultery.

gizmo111

Any wrote: »

What is going to be given as a reason for divorce? I believe that also makes difference - like if he was unfaithfull or something, or whether it's going to be mutual.

There is no blame in divorce settlements in this country.
Check out www.ondivorce.co.uk for more info.

celyn90

Any wrote: »

What is going to be given as a reason for divorce? I believe that also makes difference - like if he was unfaithfull or something, or whether it's going to be mutual.

Gizmo is correct, in my understanding it makes no difference what the reasons were. Normally in dealing with the financial settlement, the reasons for divorce are not even mentioned. At that stage, it's about cold hard division of assets.

I also think there is more to this than is being presented. Does he actually want to get divorced? Sounds to me like he's making excuses not to go through with it, but then I'm a cynical person.

Katie-Kat-Kins

There is definitely more to this than meets the eye.

The others are correct the courts start from a presumption of 50/50 in a longer marriage (they aim to return the parties back to the way they were before marriage for short marriages with no children), and then look at the individual circumstances for reasons why this should be deviated from.

The fact he has supported her will be relevent as it is likely that she has compromised her earnings ability and career prospects in order to be a stay at home wife and mother. This will normally result in a higher settlement and/or regular maintenance payments.

It could be that in fact she has invested time, money and effort into the business in recent years which may entitle her to more.

It does seem a very high amount though........ I'd be querying whether the advice is correct, or whether there are additional facts.

Perhaps she invested an inheritence in the business or paid a significant deposit on the house? Perhaps she gave up a potentially high earning career when she had children?

floss2

KatP wrote: »

.....It could be that in fact she has invested time, money and effort into the business in recent years which may entitle her to more.

It does seem a very high amount though........ I'd be querying whether the advice is correct, or whether there are additional facts.

Perhaps she invested an inheritence in the business or paid a significant deposit on the house? Perhaps she gave up a potentially high earning career when she had children?

That's exactly what I was going to say!

Also, if loans have been taken out to buy out a former partner from properties, then there may be an element of balancing up for his ex-partner's payout......

Any

gizmo111 wrote: »

There is no blame in divorce settlements in this country.
Check out www.ondivorce.co.uk for more info.

NO?
Oh, I must be watching too much TV:rotfl:

Susan_Frost

I would very much doubt the settlements would be in the ratios stated.

It could be the guy is trying to make out to your friend that he will not have much to bring to their relationship, when really he has. Could be deliberately telling porkies, in which case she needs to beware.

Also, his wife is a 50% director. She owns 50%. She has also been paid an allowance out of the company, so legally, he cannot have it both ways. Even if her allowance was some sort of tax ploy, he cant change it now.

Who says she has never worked? Him? Apart from the home and the child, does your friend really know the ins and outs of how the business has functioned. Why has he needed her signature if he is the successful business man and she is the stay at home mum ?

I think your friend has only known him for a year, and needs to be very careful. He may be making excuses not to get divorced as he may not be too committed to your friend and it is a good reason not to get too involved. Or he may ask your friend to "put up" some finances. Or he may be telling the absolute truth, and this is how it will be, but in that case there is more to it than meets the eye - his wife may have brought finances into the equation by other means.

It is only a year into the relationship, but I am assuming they are 40ish?

Has you friend got assets of her own? House? Good job?

Does your friend know people who know her boyfriend and ex and his history?

I just think she should not believe everything, and be careful for the moment.

MMMMmmmmmmmm