Divorce settlement - opinions wanted.

779

Appealing to anyone who has some experience of this.

A friend of mine has been married for around 30 years, towards the end, she found out that her husband has been cheating on her for the last seven.

They have two kids which have both left home.

For the past three months they have been negotiating divorce settlement. On the table offered by her husband at the moment is the following:

50% of savings
50% of the house (whatever it sells for)
50% of his pension.
20% of his current wage as ongoing maintainence.


My friend gave up her career to raise the children, meanwhile, he has climed up the career ladder. Considering they were married for 30 years, I would thought that she should be entitled to more than this, - I thought 50% of everything, plus a little more to compensate for ongoing earnings?

Another point is that my friend doesn't want to keep a big tie with him and rely on a lot of future maintenaince as settlement, - as she fears that his financial situation may change and he won't stick to it.


I am worried for my friend, as she is very easy going, she is not bitter or callous, - if left on her own, for an easy life, she would probably accept very little. I worry that she may accept much less than she is entitled too.

What are your thoughts on what she should accept?

durham_girl

No experience of this, but to me that sounds very reasonable and equal to both parties.

I thought 50% of everything, plus a little more to compensate for ongoing earnings?

Am I reading this right, you think she should get 50% off his earnings?

barbiedoll

I hope that she is seeking legal advice, what does her solicitor say?

truthhurts_3

Okay, let's take a logical view. Consider who contributed to the savings, house and pensions. Also let's not forget that the person who stayed at home to look after the children was contributing a nursery type income to the family. This effort would diminish when children go to school however could be replaced by a housekeeping contribution. Looking at cleaners this would however not equate to all the time available.
So I have to make some assumptions, the husband has made the majority of these savings, house and pension contributions (even after taking into account childcare and housekeeping contributions).
With this in mind 50% of all the assets is very generous. 20% of his wage is just disgraceful and a complete lack of pride. Getting an even share of assets is a big stretch and an unjust law that needs to change. Again I'm assuming that being together for 30 years that the 2 children are now of an age where they should be looking after themselves financially, so no need for additional finances to support a partner who has to house children.
Final point, the choice of having children is in the majority of cases a womans. Now I'm not saying that their partners do not welcome the decisions but are not very often the instigators.
Probably not the advice you were looking for, but advice none the less

779

No, I don't, I personally think, to compensate for future potential earnings, that she should get a much higher percentage of the house. 50% of earnings would probably take away his motivation to work.

Her solicitor hints that she should get much more than is currently on the table, - but she cannot directly tell her what she should ask for, - the main point her solicitor makes is to work out what she needs in the future to maintain the lifestyle that she is used to.

779

truthhurts, - an interesting first post, and a username to match the content of that post.

Are you going through a similar divorce at the moment yourself?

elsien

779 wrote: »

the main point her solicitor makes is to work out what she needs in the future to maintain the lifestyle that she is used to.

I think it is unlikely (unless the husband is worth millions) that either of them will walk away able to maintain the lifestyle that they are used to. Two households obviously cost more than one, looks to me as if she's expecting more than her fair share tbh.

lovecrafting

im going to be all contriversial here but im sorry its my opinion.

if they both want a divorce, regardless of the reasons then why should she be entitled to more than half of anything? why does she need maintanance if the children have grown up and left home?

sounds to me like she wants to take him to the cleaners, i say be happy with that, its a good offer

779

Okay fair enough. I was of the understanding that after over 30 years of marriage, she would be entitled to more than half, - ie 50% of everything that they have made together, plus more to earning potential.

The wikidivorce calculator seems to agree with the above. What am I missing?

truthhurts_3

779 wrote: »

truthhurts, - an interesting first post, and a username to match the content of that post.

Are you going through a similar divorce at the moment yourself?

Been through one and I had the silly law that because my 2 children were with her mother that 66% of the house equity was hers. Considering the ex would never work, or look for it, even when the children were at school I saw this as very unfair. The children were more than welcome to live with me. In fact now they have grown up one does full time.

Emmzi

the wikivorce calculator is notoriously inaccurate.

she will be expected to contribute to her own lifestyle by getting a job. surely that is only fair?