Divorce settlement - opinions wanted.

Bubby

dirtysexymonkey wrote: »

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.

It isn't just cases of spouses giving up a lucrative career where spousal maintenance is relevent, a judge would look at lifestyle and take this into account. Depending how long the wife has been at home not working this will have a very real effect on finding a decent job with a reasonable salary.

FATBALLZ

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.

I can see that it makes sense in some scenarios, in this case I'd suggest the key factor would be how much the husband actually earns. If he's on £1m a year, 20% could be considered a bit low, if he's on £30k, 20% is very generous.

neverdespairgirl

dirtysexymonkey wrote: »

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.

A lot of people were disputing it. For example, in this thread:

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.

and:

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?

and:

I agree. I thought maintenance was only for children? Can anyone enlighten?

and:

as for the ongoing maintenance - is there anything preventing her from earning now? if this goes to court again it would be very unusual for a judge to award anything.

and:

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.

mackemdave

Spousal maintenance is usually awarded for two reasons

Firstly it can be awarded for x number of years and this is normally because the wife hasnt worked for a lengthy time,ie bringing up kids,so this gives her time to train to return to a work environment...Lets say she isnt computer literate so this gives her time to get this skill so she gets the maintenance for a couple of years

It can also be awarded for life so the the wife can continue to live in the manner that she is acustomed....if shes never been a worker and her hubby has maintained her lavishly then she can expect to maintain the 4 holidays a year,weekly visits to the hairdressers etc then the ex has to pay her maintenance.....this is normally for very high earners who split in their later life when the other party has no prospect of getting a job

property.advert

Once again the woman thinks her taking care of the kids somehow contributes to his meteoric rise up the corporate ladder when hired help would have done just as well in that regard. Then we have the accrual for her giving up her career, which often amounts to little more than could be garnered from her looks and limited education. Were she destined for the upper echelons of corporate life she would probably have shown some aptitude at the time, not suddenly remember decades later that such was her plan before meeting her beau.

Perhaps the guy should think about how much she owes in rent, having lived in a house far above the standard she could have expected had she been left to fend for herself. Add in all the expensive holidays, shopping trips, cars etc. and suddenly the balance shifts.

My thoughts are that at best, her interest should be limited to that which she could have obtained from her restated net income given the opportunities open to her way back then, rather than her seeking to abandon the hard fought liberation of women and portray herself as merely a weak, dependent and fragile subordinate, which is a lie of magnificent proportions, fosters by lawyers, who would argue black was white if they could cadge a fee.

Emmzi

but property.advert, that is because you are a blatant misogynist! The judge signing off the financiasl settlement isn't allowed to be.

Gavin83

DS4215 wrote: »

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....

Then surely in that sitaution she'll be gaining more than he will as he'll be left with less than 50% of the assets? If he is no longer able to work and fully support himself anymore, surely it's only right she takes the same hit as well?

To me that offer seems more than fair and I would have offered less in his situation. However I'm not a lawyer and it is up for them to debate. She does however have to offset this against legal fees as if this gets drawn out they could both end up with less than they were originally offered paying these.

mackemdave

property.advert wrote: »

Once again the woman thinks her taking care of the kids somehow contributes to his meteoric rise up the corporate ladder when hired help would have done just as well in that regard. Then we have the accrual for her giving up her career, which often amounts to little more than could be garnered from her looks and limited education. Were she destined for the upper echelons of corporate life she would probably have shown some aptitude at the time, not suddenly remember decades later that such was her plan before meeting her beau.

Perhaps the guy should think about how much she owes in rent, having lived in a house far above the standard she could have expected had she been left to fend for herself. Add in all the expensive holidays, shopping trips, cars etc. and suddenly the balance shifts.

My thoughts are that at best, her interest should be limited to that which she could have obtained from her restated net income given the opportunities open to her way back then, rather than her seeking to abandon the hard fought liberation of women and portray herself as merely a weak, dependent and fragile subordinate, which is a lie of magnificent proportions, fosters by lawyers, who would argue black was white if they could cadge a fee.

Isnt marriage a partnership...If the guy was happy with things during the marriage does it matter who did what to create THEIR lifestyle...

newcook

I personally think spousal maintenance is a silly concept. She is getting 50% of the house, savings and pension and now she wants more every month – I personally think its greedy.

Fair enough, she was a SAHM but the kids have all grown up and flown the nest – when did this happen? How old are the children?

Does she have her own pension plan set up? Is he going to get half of hers?
Does she have her own savings? Is he going to get half of it?
Does he pay anything for the children (I know they are grown up but sometimes wealthy parents still give money to them monthly). With your friend getting half of everything is this payment going to stop?

santashelper_2

I know of a couple who have been through this

The male got

less than 50% of the house she had done improvements but not finished them and so they could only take into account the property before improvements
15% of the wifes earnings she was in a better paid position a business he started up for her ( with a clean break they may say 5 years of spousal maintenance but it usually gets brought down to 3 years) unfair but thats what happens his wage was hugely less
a small percentage of the business (not as much as he had invested in it.

The female who left her husband was told spousal maintenace of £500 for 5 years but because of clean break reduced to less then he paid her, less due to the fact he could not afford more (unfair but thats life).
His business nothing - it was classed as a well paid job, he tied all his money up in it and she did not have the funds to fight for more and because legal aid is harder to obtain now their view was she had a case but probably would not be able to get the funds as he had tied them up.


The problem is that most divorce cases are usually because of unreasonable behaviour if a person treats the other person unreasonably in the marriage they are not going to treat them reasonably in divorce and if they have hold of the purse strings the other person is left under heavy financial pressures to accept what is on the table.

Basically a marriage is like any other contract just because your married it does not always mean 50/50 especially if the person holding all the purse strings makes sure they are covered in the event of divorce but their partner is not. the moral is never trust anyone and make sure you protect your own interests.

For the male in this case he accepted an offer which was not particularly fair but had no alternative as when taking into court it go can any way there is no fast and set rule and you could end up worse off. Apparently when asked how she was going to pay him off her reply to the solicitor was "i will steal the money if i have to"

The solicitors response to the the client was "your well rid of her".

in both situtations the other party were treating their partners unfairly and unreasonably putting pressure on them to line their pockets their marriages were manipulated by control for financial gain.

Thankfully, they are both in new relationships now and are both very happy with partners they can trust.

Sadly this is why prenuptial agreements are becoming the new must have in a marriage, too many people think being married and divorcing automatically give a right to things being split 50/50 this is not always the case.