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

Oldernotwiser

mitrant wrote: »

My anger is based around the fact that I asked a straight-forward, simple question, providing information that I know about their financial circumstances in case it had any direct bearing on a potential settlement. It is you, and one or two others, who rather than answer this question and leave it be chose to make multiple unfounded accusations about my friend and in your own particular way call into question his character for being concerned about what is in fact a very big part of adult life - finances. I am not about to post a detailed, psychological analysis on him and his wife on a forum primarily dealing with money. .

But you've posted on a board which is mainly about relationships, so it's hardly surprising that the comments you've received have covered this area.

Oldernotwiser

mitrant wrote: »

Reversing the situation somewhat - if my partner owned a house (outright, no mortgage or anything) and we got married and I moved into her home I wouldn't be expecting my name to be put on the deeds. It isn't my property and I have contributed nothing to its purchase, alterations and very little towards its upkeep. As far as I'm concerned, the property would be hers and I wouldn't be looking to claim any ownership to it.e.

You and your friend obviously share similar ideas on marriage but you can hardly be surprised that not everyone shares these ideas. You seem to forget that traditional wedding vows include the words "All my worldly goods I share with you'" and even if couples don't marry in a church that is still the assumption in most marriages.

mitrant

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But you've posted on a board which is mainly about relationships, so it's hardly surprising that the comments you've received have covered this area.

I can appreciate that to an extent, although I still do object to people inferring things that simply aren't there from my comments. And in my defence, there is a sticky (which I read prior to posting this to ensure that my thread was at least in-part related to the subjects covered by this board) which does state that the board should still be used primarily for discussions about money-saving and money issues. The simple truth is, I asked a question related to a very specific issue and whether this forum is for the discussion of relationships or not (and the sticky clearly indicates that this is not its primary point of discussion) it is a reasonable expectation that the answers given deal with that specific question.

If I were to ask a question regarding the film 'Sweet Smell of Success' or 'Black Narcissus' on a classic film forum, would it be appropriate to receive responses relating to films such as 'Cannibal Holocaust' and 'I Spit on Your Grave'? No, I don't think it would be just as it isn't appropriate to ask a question about a very specific and for many quite traumatic experience such as divorce and have several of the answers (notably from the same couple of parties) completely unrelated to that question. If divorce is 'no-fault' then why are some of you so determined to lay the blame at my friend's feet, eh?

You and your friend obviously share similar ideas on marriage but you can hardly be surprised that not everyone shares these ideas. You seem to forget that traditional wedding vows include the words "All my worldly goods I share with you'" and even if couples don't marry in a church that is still the assumption in most marriages.

Well I suppose we, like many other people we know, share some ideas about marriage which could simply be attributed to environment - but the point is, so (at the time at least) did his wife. As I stated, she has never made any claim to owning the house and has never indicated that she would like to be considered as a joint-owner.

On the contrary, throughout the duration of their relationship and subsequent marriage, she has been adamant that they live seperate financial lives. I can understand that this may be considered unconventional but what I don't understand is why these decisions are apparently such a bad reflection on my friend - and I guess, due to my agreement with my friend, myself - when the vast majority of such decisions can be traced back to her. She did have some input into the alterations made to his home (the previously mentioned wardrobe and a room set aside for her hobbies) but it doesn't appear that at any point she brought up being added to the deeds as a joint-occupant... quite honestly, given the degree that she has benefiited from the marriage both socially and financially and given the fact that anybody who has met my friend and his wife in a social setting could tell how much HE adores HER, I have no real doubt that had the subject ever been brought up, he would have certainly considered adding her to the deed, and there is a big chance he would have done so. The fact is that he did share his house with her, for more than seven years - she lived there (hell, she is still living there even now), she had a key there, she was allowed to treat the place as her own home etc. etc.

According to my friend (and yes, I do appreciate this is only one side of the story), his wife wouldn't even accept as much as being considered a second card-holder on his credit card account, even though he was willing to make her one and apparently offered to do so on more than one occasion. My argument therefore is that while this may not be a conventional view of marriage (but to be honest, what marriage is conventional in this day and age?) why is my friend the "bad guy" in this situation when his wife was making most, if not all, of such major decisions?

I can fully appreciate that the law takes none of this into consideration and if a 50/50 split is the most likely outcome then that is what will have to happen - and yes, I do feel very sorry for him because I know how hard he has worked and I know how hard it will hit him if he has to lay people off from his company - to be perfectly honest, I know him well enough to know he'd probably sell most of his own possessions before he let someone go.

Believe it or not, he is a really nice guy - salt of the earth, as some might say - and such minor quibbles as whose name is on the title deeds to his house are not going to change that and the simple fact of the matter is that we should not even be having this conversation as you and your compadre there should have known better than to make your evaluations and accusations about another person based solely on a few words on a message board.

SandC

I think part of the issue is that regardless of her having insisted on living separate financial lives and wanting no ownership of the house, by virtue of being married at all she has a certain amount of financial security behind her - unless that is she chooses to walk away with nothing. Sadly, when it comes to splitting up, what principles were strongly adhered to before often get thrown out of the window in favour of a new set. Let's face it even if they kept the pennies separate she was never financially independent.

I suspect his lawyer friend will recommend a specialist divorce lawyer to him. I honestly don't think he will get too rough a ride out of this - and seeing as they did keep their finances separate well one thing that does swing in his favour is that she will not have the funds to drag things out using solicitors. She may well be advised to keep things simple to avoid massive bills that she doesn't have the money to pay for.

paddy's_mum

mitrant - can you not see that even now you are slipping into this conversation little digs at the wife that make it very obvious to a reader that your feelings are getting in the way of seeing things as dispassionately as an outsider would.

You wrote this morning that in relation to the house, she "was allowed to treat the place as her own home". Yet again, I'm astonished at your choice of words since, as she lived there with her husband for the past seven years, it was the matrimonial home, and therefore it was her own home! Why wouldn't she have a key even though it is her husband's sole name on the deeds?

There are more such comments throughout.

I am asking you to re-read all that you have written and perhaps come to see (even if you don't agree with what was said) that quite a lot of what you wrote in the beginning of this thread was equally open to interpretation. You take issue with my repeating your words 'lose' and 'sting' but can you really not see that their very use indicates a mind-set of defensiveness and resentment against the wife, however accurate your assessment might be. It is for the courts, not you, to reach conclusions over who did what and who gets what. You could have used the words settlement, fair share, appropriate provision, legally acceptable and a whole different atmosphere would have prevailed.

Instead, it became clear to the reader that for a multitude of reasons which you gave later, you felt that she was entitled to the bare minimum and would apparently be content if she received virtually nothing. Your view may indeed be justified but you really should not be surprised if based on comments you made, readers take it to mean that you and your friend, as allies, are looking for ways to do the wife down.

You make a pointed reference to responders being "determined to lay the blame at my friend's feet" but again, you leave it open to interpretation as to what you mean. You use the words after referring to 'no fault' so I take it to mean that you believe your friend is being blamed by responders for the breakdown of the marriage. I for one would run a mile from accusing one person or another for the breakdown of a relationship. I believe it to be an absolute truth that no-one but the couple knows what really happens inside their marriage and it might be wise of you not to be too sure that you know many of the ins and outs either.

I could go on and dissect other bits and pieces of what you wrote but it is would be pointless if you are still too angry at what you perceive as an attack on your friend to look at another point of view. I do not argue for one moment that you think him a "really nice guy - salt of the earth" but as you yourself point out, we have only one side of the story and that at second-hand.

I think it a pity that I perhaps put things carelessly but which you took to be an assassination of the character of your friend, forgetting that though to you he is a real person, to me, he and his situation are hypothetical.

Finally, I would submit that before you take issue with others, you need to ask yourself why you have chosen to give out such a massive amount of information to a world of strangers if you truly did not want the opinions of other people?

You might also want to ponder aspects of your assessment of my character which rest on making "evaluations and accusations about another person based solely on a few words on a message board".

It is quite clear that you and I are in a "glass half empty or glass half full" situation and that further comment would simply be superfluous. Nevertheless, I genuinely wish your friend well and hope that his difficulties can soon be resolved as quickly, fairly and painlessly as possible.

mitrant

paddy's_mum wrote: »

mitrant - can you not see that even now you are slipping into this conversation little digs at the wife that make it very obvious to a reader that your feelings are getting in the way of seeing things as dispassionately as an outsider would.

You wrote this morning that in relation to the house, she "was allowed to treat the place as her own home". Yet again, I'm astonished at your choice of words since, as she lived there with her husband for the past seven years, it was the matrimonial home, and therefore it was her own home! Why wouldn't she have a key even though it is her husband's sole name on the deeds?

And can you not see that I made those comments purposely to admonish those of you who somehow believe that theirs was not an equal relationship and that the house was not "shared"? Honestly, this is becoming absolutely ludicrous and I can only assume (yeah, I'll make some assumptions now) that I am unfortunately on the receiving end of some vile witch-hunt based on a misandrist mentality that all men are to blame for the termination of a relationship. I did not once state that anything that you are now throwing at me was abnormal or unusual - I simply stated it because another person on this thread has chosen to act as if my friend had been mistreating his wife. Surely you can understand the very basic principle that when confronted with such ignorance it becomes necessary to detail what should be blindingly obvious but clearly isn't?

The simple fact is that it was thrown at me that marriage vows contain "share all my worldly goods" in direct relation to the house and it was also supposed that due to a relatively simple matter, already discussed at length, of the title deeds that the house was not shared with his wife. I provided the "she lives there, has a key blah blah" statement solely to point out that it clearly was shared with her, despite her name not being on the deeds. Capiche?

I am asking you to re-read all that you have written and perhaps come to see (even if you don't agree with what was said) that quite a lot of what you wrote in the beginning of this thread was equally open to interpretation

I am asking you, again, to understand that your "interpretations" were neither sought nor necessary. All anybody was asked to do was answer the original question based on the information provided (provided in case it had any direct relevance) but instead of doing so, whatever chip on your shoulder you have has been manifested in this unneeded attack on others based on nothing but pure speculation.

You take issue with my repeating your words 'lose' and 'sting' but can you really not see that their very use indicates a mind-set of defensiveness and resentment against the wife,

Only in your mind.

It is for the courts, not you, to reach conclusions over who did what and who gets what.

I have never once said anything contradictory to this hence this becomes yet another pointless statement.

You could have used the words settlement, fair share, appropriate provision, legally acceptable and a whole different atmosphere would have prevailed.

I could have also wrote my message with perfect grammar, spelling and maybe even in iambic pentameter just to show off. I was unaware that a forum on the internet would have amateur psychologists intent on reading in to every single word and judging them rather than simply commenting on the question at hand. How silly of me, eh?

Instead, it became clear to the reader that for a multitude of reasons which you gave later, you felt that she was entitled to the bare minimum and would apparently be content if she received virtually nothing.

What is clear is that you like to make things up. I have not said any such thing - neither directly or indirectly - and I can only assume that this is yet another example of the chip on your shoulder manifesting itself. I asked how much my friend would possibly lose - not once did I deny his wife her legal right to her fair share, and I have already defended myself from these ludicrous accusations from you. Sadly, you continue to make them - might I ask why when there isn't anything supporting your allegations?

Your view may indeed be justified but you really should not be surprised if based on comments you made, readers take it to mean that you and your friend, as allies, are looking for ways to do the wife down.

Nothing but lies, pure and simple.

You make a pointed reference to responders being "determined to lay the blame at my friend's feet" but again, you leave it open to interpretation as to what you mean.

And once again, there was no need for your "interpretations" and no need for you to discuss who did what to whom based on your unfounded assumptions.

You use the words after referring to 'no fault' so I take it to mean that you believe your friend is being blamed by responders for the breakdown of the marriage.

Well, quite clearly, in the eyes of both yourself and OlderNotWiser this is very much the case as both of you have done very little else but seek out ways to run-down my friends character.

I for one would run a mile from accusing one person or another for the breakdown of a relationship.

Well I can only assume that you need a new pair of running shoes.

I believe it to be an absolute truth that no-one but the couple knows what really happens inside their marriage and it might be wise of you not to be too sure that you know many of the ins and outs either.

And it might be a wise decision for you to immediately cease making judgements with regards to people you know absolutely nothing about and relationships you know absolutely nothing about. I have the advantage here of both experience and knowledge about these people - you have nothing but your own accusations.

I could go on and dissect other bits and pieces of what you wrote but it is would be pointless if you are still too angry at what you perceive as an attack on your friend to look at another point of view.

On average, how many times does one have to repeat themselves for you to get the message? I do not require any points of view with regards to my friend's relationship with his wife. I don't know quite how I can make this clearer? All I ever asked, was based on the information provided, what is a likely settlement going to be. This should have been the end of it - these unnecessarily long back-and-forths between yourself, myself and the other individual should never have come about because you and OlderNotWiser should not have started up with your snide, petty remarks and your unnecessary trashing of a very good and close friend of mine.

I do not argue for one moment that you think him a "really nice guy - salt of the earth" but as you yourself point out, we have only one side of the story and that at second-hand.

You wouldn't even have that comment had you not decided to go off-kilter to begin with.

I think it a pity that I perhaps put things carelessly but which you took to be an assassination of the character of your friend, forgetting that though to you he is a real person, to me, he and his situation are hypothetical.

If you truly believed it "was a pity" you would have apologised before now, rather than entrenching yourself to defend your viewpoints.

Finally, I would submit that before you take issue with others, you need to ask yourself why you have chosen to give out such a massive amount of information to a world of strangers if you truly did not want the opinions of other people?

I gave out the information that was necessary to an anonymous internet forum - being very careful not to provide any information that could identify myself, or somebody who knew my friend and/or his wife. The few hundred words that make up my OP are hardly a "massive amount of information" and nor did they ever ask for the opinions of other people except for the actual topic I wished to discuss.

You might also want to ponder aspects of your assessment of my character which rest on making "evaluations and accusations about another person based solely on a few words on a message board".

Clearly you only understand sarcasm when you're the one dishing it out, eh? However, given your continued defiance that you have in any way approached this subject unfairly and without just cause for your accusations, the fact that you purposely mention your feelings that it is mostly "the husband" who commits wrongs in a marriage and the fact that you have taken words I have said out of context (and at points blatantly made things up) then I am inclined to believe you to be a misandrist.

Nevertheless, I genuinely wish your friend well and hope that his difficulties can soon be resolved as quickly, fairly and painlessly as possible.

Suffice to say, I'm more inclined to believe that the earth orbits the moon than that any positive sentiment expressed from yourself is "genuine".

maggied_2

Wow Mitrant - Longest. Post Ever.:D

Aside from the above I was very interested to see another thread on this page where a wife has been cheated on and everyone on there urging her to take the b*stard for all he's got.

I can see how if a friend of mine stood to lose a lot of his assets to his cheating wife I wold feel defensive toward him too. However I also support the 'no blame' divorce as these matters are never objective.

As there no children involved it should be easier to get a settlement.

IF the OP's friend came to the marriage with a lot and the wife has not sacrificed her own career etc in order to help him make more money / have children then I don't honestly think that after 6 years she should be able to walk away with 50% of everything.

I CAN see however that in a longer marriage, and especially where children are involved, that the share of assets should be more even.

However this is all opinion which is neither here nor there.

OP - your friend needs to get a decent solicitor and not let any bitterness towards his soon to be ex wife cloud his judgment on financial matters. There's a reason why divorce solicitor never seem to struggle for money :rolleyes: When it's costing more to pay your solicitor than you can hope to retain it's time to cut your losses and run.

mitrant

maggied wrote: »

Wow Mitrant - Longest. Post Ever.:D

Aside from the above I was very interested to see another thread on this page where a wife has been cheated on and everyone on there urging her to take the b*stard for all he's got.

I can see how if a friend of mine stood to lose a lot of his assets to his cheating wife I wold feel defensive toward him too. However I also support the 'no blame' divorce as these matters are never objective.

As there no children involved it should be easier to get a settlement.

IF the OP's friend came to the marriage with a lot and the wife has not sacrificed her own career etc in order to help him make more money / have children then I don't honestly think that after 6 years she should be able to walk away with 50% of everything.

I CAN see however that in a longer marriage, and especially where children are involved, that the share of assets should be more even.

However this is all opinion which is neither here nor there.

OP - your friend needs to get a decent solicitor and not let any bitterness towards his soon to be ex wife cloud his judgment on financial matters. There's a reason why divorce solicitor never seem to struggle for money :rolleyes: When it's costing more to pay your solicitor than you can hope to retain it's time to cut your losses and run.

Hi, thank you for your response. I am sure once my friend's solicitor has come back from his travels, and once my friend has arrived at a decision as to what he is going to do then should he choose to proceed with a divorce then he'll be able to get the advice he needs.

When I was younger, I was scalded by my mother and labelled "hideously cynical" by a friend of mine when at my cousin's wedding I made a sly comment that marriage is a creation of divorce lawyers... however, I did not do this in earshot of the bride, groom or anyone who would inform them of such sentiments - I'm not completely tactless!

Anyway, thanks for understanding that the only reason I even posted this thread to begin with is concern for my friend and that is it. I've heard some real horror stories about divorces, although I don't know whether the "taking the b*****d for all he's worth" thing is a primarily American phenomenon, it still hurts to think that someone who has worked hard could lose a lot, and in the process, cause himself more heartache by having to let down others such as his employees. The truth is, I know he'll push for a reasonable settlement - he doesn't want to see his wife on the streets and that's why he hasn't kicked her out - but there's reasonable and then there's grotesque.

But thank you again for your response, I appreciate it.

wannabe_sybil

My understanding is that the divorce will look at 50/50 split of assets accrued during the marriage.

I feel so sorry for your friend - there is obviously no chance of reconciliation, and it must be heartbreaking to lose a relationship. He must be devastated.

Mutter_2

mitrant, if you treat your wife with as little respect as the posters here, that is you think we are all daft, she is likely to fleece you.