Divorce settlement - opinions wanted.

Bubby

50/50 for the house is a starting point, she has contributed to the raising of the children and her husbands career so the fact that she hasn't contributed a monetary value is irrelevent.

It should also be a 50/50 split on the total pension pot as a starting point. If this means that the share of the house is not enough for her to start again mortgage free/with a small mortgage then there is definitely a case for some spousal maintenance. Are there any savings/investments? these will be in the total figure aswell.

clearingout

clearingout wrote: »

50% is a starting point. It is perfectly possible that she should receive more than this, yes. How old is she? How many working years left? Is he a high earner? Is she going to be able to house herself with 50% of the value of the house? That's probably crucial in that if either of them need a mortgage to house themselves over and above that 50%, she will be at a distinct disadvantage given her earning 15% of what he earns. In this sense, it may well be that she could ask for more capital to secure her housing but perhaps offset it against his pension or longer-term spousal maintenance. It is also possible to ask for spousal maintenance to be capitalized.

After 30 years, assuming he's a high earner and she's only working around minimum wage, I think spousal maintenance of some kind is likely. Just to add, she would probably be eligible for Working Tax Credit - has she looked at that?

the logic is that it was a joint choice, that 'home making' is valued equally as paid employment, and that it is likely career options have been limited as a result. After 30 years (assuming an early marriage at 20), there is little working life left, little time to accummulate a decent pension, little time to retrain etc. The logic,then, is that an equal contribution has been made to the marriage but on the marriage ending, living equally is going to be very difficult - so a settlement will tip the balance in favour of the person who earned least and who has least potential earning power into the future. Usually that's a woman. There is no suggestion that the woman shouldn't work, up her hours or retrain if that's what she wants but at age 50 (possibly more), the likelihood of gaining back lost years in terms of pension and salary is far less than it would be at 40 or younger.

Of course, there are always going to be situations whereby one party sat at home on their backside, didn't do anything, husband went out to work and did everything....but the courts simply don't have the time to discriminate in that way and even if they did, if you put up with it for 30 years, at some level you accepted it.

50/50 is not generous, it's a starting point and the person concerned needs to take good legal advice to ensure that their future is as secure as her soon to be ex husbands.

neverdespairgirl

lovecrafting wrote: »

i know it seems harshe and im not trying to be, i just think that if he works hard, and his kids are grown up then he shouldnt have to keep a woman he is no longer married to. he is already going to loose half the house, half the savings half his pention, at what point does he become worse off than her, he would potentially be working every hour under the sun for nothing.

He's not going to "lose" half the house. It's their house already. He's going to crystalise his half, that's all.

OP, yes, in circumstances where one partner has run the home and the other earned a good living over 30 years, there is often an award for on-going spousal support.

And it can be capitalised, so that the wife now gets more than 50% of the assests but no on-going payments.

neverdespairgirl

It's all done on a case-by-case basis, so is very fact-dependant. But the idea of the wife in a long marriage getting more than half the assets or an on-going payment is well-established as possible.

For example, the case of MacFarlane v MacFarlane

the facts in that case:

8. The parties are forty-four years of age. They married in September 1984 after two years of co-habitation. Their three children are aged respectively fifteen, thirteen and eight and are educated at fee-paying schools.

9. At the outset of their co-habitation in 1982, the husband was a trainee chartered accountant working for a leading international firm; and the wife was a trainee solicitor with a leading city firm. By the date of their marriage they had both qualified in their respective professions. The husband has throughout remained with the firm with which he trained. In advancing her career the wife moved to work for a large venture capital company and then in due course moved to another leading city firm. She returned to work soon after the birth of her first child but the couple agreed that she should not return to work after the birth of her second child in 1991. The husband had become a partner in 1990 and the understandable agreement was that the wife should abandon her legal career in order to devote all her time and energy to their two babies and the developing family. The husband's prospects would amply provide for the family's financial needs. In one sense this was a substantial sacrifice on the wife's part, since in the years prior to the husband achieving partnership she had earned as much or more than he.

The parties agreed that they would split the assets 50/50, and disagreed about future payments to the wife and / or a capitalised payment instead. Child maintenance was agreed for the 3 children at £20,000 per child per year, plus school fees.

The final order on appeal was for payment to the wife of £250,000 a year for 5 years. Husband earned about £750,000, so he would pay £250,000 to the wife + £60,000 for the children + £60,000-odd school fees, so about £370,000 a year.

DS4215

Rather than relying on ongoing maintenance, which at his age could end suddenly due to ill health or redundancy, she might want to ask for a large %age of the capital assets and 0 spousal maintenance. She might sign up for 20% maintenance and only get it for a few months....

dirtysexymonkey

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It's all done on a case-by-case basis, so is very fact-dependant. But the idea of the wife in a long marriage getting more than half the assets or an on-going payment is well-established as possible.

For example, the case of MacFarlane v MacFarlane

the facts in that case:

8. The parties are forty-four years of age. They married in September 1984 after two years of co-habitation. Their three children are aged respectively fifteen, thirteen and eight and are educated at fee-paying schools.

9. At the outset of their co-habitation in 1982, the husband was a trainee chartered accountant working for a leading international firm; and the wife was a trainee solicitor with a leading city firm. By the date of their marriage they had both qualified in their respective professions. The husband has throughout remained with the firm with which he trained. In advancing her career the wife moved to work for a large venture capital company and then in due course moved to another leading city firm. She returned to work soon after the birth of her first child but the couple agreed that she should not return to work after the birth of her second child in 1991. The husband had become a partner in 1990 and the understandable agreement was that the wife should abandon her legal career in order to devote all her time and energy to their two babies and the developing family. The husband's prospects would amply provide for the family's financial needs. In one sense this was a substantial sacrifice on the wife's part, since in the years prior to the husband achieving partnership she had earned as much or more than he.

The parties agreed that they would split the assets 50/50, and disagreed about future payments to the wife and / or a capitalised payment instead. Child maintenance was agreed for the 3 children at £20,000 per child per year, plus school fees.

The final order on appeal was for payment to the wife of £250,000 a year for 5 years. Husband earned about £750,000, so he would pay £250,000 to the wife + £60,000 for the children + £60,000-odd school fees, so about £370,000 a year.

that case isnt relevant. the op does not have three children living with her being supported by her. the children are all adults and independent. and theres no suggestion that the op gave up a lucrative career so it really isnt relevant at all.

neverdespairgirl

dirtysexymonkey wrote: »

that case isnt relevant. the op does not have three children living with her being supported by her. the children are all adults and independent. and theres no suggestion that the op gave up a lucrative career so it really isnt relevant at all.

It is relevant. It shows that there can be an unequal division of the assets, or on-going spousal payments, in the context of long marriages.

dirtysexymonkey

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It is relevant. It shows that there can be an unequal division of the assets, or on-going spousal payments, in the context of long marriages.

when their are children in the home. in the ops case, there arent so its not relevant.

neverdespairgirl

No, it's not restricted to there being children living at home.

dirtysexymonkey

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

No, it's not restricted to there being children living at home.

i didnt say it did. but the case isnt relevant. no one is disputing that spousal maintenance exists. but in that case the wife gave up a promising and high paying career to be a mother - the op didnt. that case also has three minor children living at home, the op's case doesn't. there are too many differences for it to be relevant.