Generally speaking, what is a partner entitled to in a divorce?

mitrant

I'm asking this on behalf of a friend of mine who is considering divorcing his wife due to her infidelity. Obviously, I appreciate that to get an exact answer he will need to speak to a solicitor but his own solicitor is out of the country for a few weeks and he doesn't feel comfortable speaking to another solicitor about this - however, it is taking its toll on him (we met for a couple of drinks tonight and he's clearly quite distressed) and so I figure if there's any information I can gather here to help ease his mind then it is better than leaving him to sit through the next couple of weeks worrying.

Basically speaking, he is quite well off - not a rich man by any accounts but he is fairly successful. He owns the house (which he owned before he met his wife) and the deeds are solely in his name. He also owns a small company and had a fair bit of money before he met his wife. Obviously, since the marriage he has made even more. His wife, on the other hand, has worked as a receptionist in a small office, earning what I understand to be less than half of my friend's income. They don't share a bank account, have no children and are both financially independant of each other with my friend also paying the majority of the household bills due to earning more. I know my friend is a big saver and probably has quite a substantial amount of money in investments, savings accounts and such but I have no idea about whether his wife adopts a similar approach.

My friend is obviously concerned that divorcing his wife would see him losing a large proportion of his savings (a la Paul McCartney) and is probably even more concerned that he would lose his house which he has spent a fortune on turning it into his dream home over the years - now I wouldn't think that a house that belongs solely to him would be considered a marital asset but I have no idea about these things myself.

They have been married for just over six years and so is my friend right to be so concerned about how this divorce might sting him financially, or is he worrying unnecessarily?

Any help is greatly appreciated and thank you for taking the time to read this.

Morglin

Divorce is 'no fault', (financially), nowadays, so it doesn't matter who's done what to who - settlement goes on purely on assets and income.

He may have to give up some of the house equity, and savings will probably be viewed as joint.

The best thing he could do is to consult his solicitor asap, who will have access to all his information, and ask what the likely scenario will be.

It will probably cost him money, but if splitting makes him happier, then it's probably worth it (it cost me a bundle to get rid of my ex!:eek:)

Lin

Oldernotwiser

I can't comment about the financial side of things but I can certainly understand his wife's infidelities - he sounds a real charmer!

roddydogs

Re the original post-a "Partner" is not entitled to anything...but a "Wife" or Civil Partner is.

Voyager2002

I'm afraid that he might well lose a lot to her.

He needs a good long discussion with a solicitor, but in the meantime he could buy one of those books that explain the law -- I think that Which magazine produces one that is reasonably accurate.

floss2

I was always under the impression that a marriage without children started at 50/50 and worked back from there, taking into account each person's financial situation when they got married - i.e. length of marriage, pension situations, property etc.

But I am not a solicitor and I would second the advice that he needs to speak to one ASAP.

Why doesn't he want to speak to one in his solicitor's practice for intial advice? Has he got something he does't want his wife to know?

BonandDom

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I can't comment about the financial side of things but I can certainly understand his wife's infidelities - he sounds a real charmer!

You made me go back and read the original post - still can't understand where you are coming from with that comment - so I will just ignore it.

I can only agree that a solicitor is the only person who can truly answer this.

My ex was very similar to your friend, BUT he was a wife beater and abuser. I walked out of the marriage with my little old mini, my two dogs and whatever else I could fit in the car (not a lot if you can imagine me, a border collie and a bearded collie in a classic mini:rotfl::rotfl:). My solicitor tried to persuade me to get some money and property of him but I absolutely refused, but not all people are as desperate as I was.

SandC

As others have said, fault doesn't come into the finances in a divorce. A lot of the time it's down to the solicitors and how they handle it. Her solicitor will ask for everything they can get - his should dispute it all. As he was already established before they got married she will probably not get as much as 50/50. Do bear in mind when you talk about Paul McCartney -she didn't get a substantial proportion - she may have got millions but in percentage terms it was nowhere near what she considered she should have been getting.

As I said if it's not decided between them and then finalised by solicitors it really will come down to how they fight their corner.

paddy's_mum

Questions like this really annoy me! Why do so many people start squealing about the financial implications of divorce only after they get married. The laws on financial adjustment if the marriage breaks down are well known, easy to access and simple to understand. If you don't like the heat, surely a prudent person would stay out of the kitchen?

Your friend would be well advised to change some of his attitudes. I am sure that no divorce court judge is going to be sympathetic to a husband who petulantly whines that he is entitled to keep a bigger share of their joint assets because his wife earned "less than half my friend's income". So what? When they married, they agreed to share themselves and their possessions. The way you describe him makes him sound like a little playground bully - "it's my ball and I wanna be captain"!

Your friend isn't about to suffer a 'sting' - and I quote your revealing word. He is perhaps though going to have to go through the courts to ensure fair play for both parties.

You state that they didn't have children. I'm inclined to wonder what your friend's attitude to 'his' things would be in this situation if there had been children to take into consideration. Given your comments about Macca, presumably you didn't notice that even before their divorce settlement, a very large sum of money was voluntarily set aside to provide generously for their child, an action and an attitude that your friend would be wise to take notice of.

Finally, may I point out a cold, hard fact? Fighting over the who-gets-what in a divorce almost always results in spending out more in solicitors' fees than is being disputed. Nobody gets rich in disputes over divorce or wills except the lawyers. There is good, sound, commonsense behind the clean break principle, and your friend would do well to heed it.

neneromanova

paddy's_mum wrote: »

Questions like this really annoy me! Why do so many people start squealing about the financial implications of divorce only after they get married. The laws on financial adjustment if the marriage breaks down are well known, easy to access and simple to understand. If you don't like the heat, surely a prudent person would stay out of the kitchen?

Your friend would be well advised to change some of his attitudes. I am sure that no divorce court judge is going to be sympathetic to a husband who petulantly whines that he is entitled to keep a bigger share of their joint assets because his wife earned "less than half my friend's income". So what? When they married, they agreed to share themselves and their possessions. The way you describe him makes him sound like a little playground bully - "it's my ball and I wanna be captain"!

Your friend isn't about to suffer a 'sting' - and I quote your revealing word. He is perhaps though going to have to go through the courts to ensure fair play for both parties.

You state that they didn't have children. I'm inclined to wonder what your friend's attitude to 'his' things would be in this situation if there had been children to take into consideration. Given your comments about Macca, presumably you didn't notice that even before their divorce settlement, a very large sum of money was voluntarily set aside to provide generously for their child, an action and an attitude that your friend would be wise to take notice of.

Finally, may I point out a cold, hard fact? Fighting over the who-gets-what in a divorce almost always results in spending out more in solicitors' fees than is being disputed. Nobody gets rich in disputes over divorce or wills except the lawyers. There is good, sound, commonsense behind the clean break principle, and your friend would do well to heed it.

I don't agree with this at all! I'm guessing the relationship would still be going if the woman has been faithful to her husband. Why should she get anything because she was the one who ruined the marriage. If it had been the Husband who had cheated and the woman was posting and she was the one who was earning lots, you'd be telling her to take him for all he's worth, so what's the difference now?

paddy's_mum

Yes, you are guessing that she was the one who ruined the marriage. You are also guessing what I would be telling the wife if the boot were on the other foot. You are mistaken on both counts since what I wrote is, I believe, a fairly accurate representation on how the divorce laws of this country work. Have you not heard of the concept of 'no fault' divorce?

Do you think that the attitudes of the hubby, as given by the words of his friend in the opening post, might - and yes, I'm guessing! - be an indication of a very unhappy situation in which the wife was almost driven into the arms of someone else?

Did you not grasp the insight of Oldernotwiser's earlier post, or did you think it was just a piece of needless sarcasm?

Turn this round. If the husband, on just a single weak occasion in years of happy and hardworking marriage, had a one night stand while away on a business trip, should the divorce courts strip him of all he owns on the basis that he has committed a grievous wrong?

Far from joining the ranks of screaming harridans "telling her to take him for all he's worth", I think you would find that I would be doing what I usually do and advocating fair play for all involved.

I hope that if you re-read my post, you will see that I am not applying any differences between them based on being him or her. I'm simply pointing out that the laws of this country do not accept that when a marriage breaks down, there is only ever one person wholly to blame.