Divorce settlement - opinions wanted.

clearingout

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.

No doubt 'hired help' could have helped bring up children but the Law presumes a couple make decisions together and few people would disagree that it is appropriate one parent is at home with the children whilst they are young at least. Hired help could also wash shirts, do the cleaning, ironing and food shopping but it is likely this is something that was shared by the average married couple.

The suggestion that women can't have a 'career' other than what is based on their 'looks and a suggestion of 'limited' education is ridiculous at best, entirely sexist at worst. Universities are full of women coming out with First Class Honours degrees and trail blazing through their chosen professions. Many of these same women give up, put on hold, or in someway limit their careers upon having children. The glass ceiling is, however, a different matter.

You cannot put a figure on what someone might have earned. The woman may well have made fabulous career choices and earned a salary of £100k plus had she not given up due to children. The same woman, with the same qualifications and experience may have made bad choices along the way and never made more than £25k a year but still worked full-time whilst she had children. Or indeed, although capable of earning £100k a year, was happy being a 'monkey' rather than an 'organ-grinder' and preferred doing the job to managing those trying to do it and so never got a pay rise. There are literally thousands of possibilities, none of which could be appropriately explored in each individual case.

Divorce in these situations is never about women portraying themselves as helpless, fragile individuals. It's about working out what is fair - a marriage is seen, by the Law if nothing else, as a partnership made up of equal input by both parties. Conduct in the marriage, or outwith for that matter, has nothing to do with divorce settlements. The Law attempts to send out the people previously involved in a long marriage partnership back into the world as single people on a roughly equal footing. I fail to see what is wrong with that.

neverdespairgirl

newcook wrote: »

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?

I don't think it is at all silly, or greedy.

ford_prefect_3

There are two case law precedents in divorce which are likely to apply.

The first is White versus White, he worked, she was the homemaker, it was considered a shared contribution so the split was 50/50

The second was Parlour versus Parlour (the footballer) where his wife was entitled to maintenance linked to his future earnings as she left her career to raise the kids to allow him to become a high earning footballer

So its possible she could get the 50/50 on assetts and pension and then a maintenance schedule linked to his earnings, however, as the kids are adults its likely to be a short term maintenance agreement as opposed to a life long one.

He may choose a bigger split to offset the future maintenance option.

Her solicitor may be able to fight but she will still have to pay the costs on this, it sometimes more effective to settle fairly with low legal costs than rack up a bill that leaves you with less after a "bigger" settlement.

zzzLazyDaisy

Okay, I have only read the first and last page of the thread - so apologies if I am repeating anything, or have overlooked anything.

My view (based on some experience of divorce and the courts, although I am not a divorce lawyer, so this is just my opinion and not legal advice) is that with no dependent children and a wife who is perfectly capable of working and over time supporting herself independently, the likely decision, should this go to court, would be 50/50 for all the matrimonial assets (house, savings etc) - this would be calculated by pooling all his and her assets and splitting them equally. 50% each of the pension pot under the pension splitting rules (if she also has a pension, the value of both is added together and split 50/50, then his pension going to her till the balance is achieved). Spousal maintenance may be awarded if he is a high earner, and she is on a low wage, but it is likely to be limited in time - who knows how long but lets say two years - to give her chance to establish herself and earn independently. Often there is a clean break settlement with the spousal maintenance rolled up and paid in a lump sum.

The situation may well be different - and often is - if the wife is unable to work or her earning power is limited because she is the primary carer for dependent children. Or if it is unreasonable to expect her to work, or her earning power is limited because of illness/disability/age etc. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Also in some very high value divorces where the wife gave up a high powered career to support her husband (eg both were high flying lawyer with potential to become QCs and she stops work at his insistence to raise the children while he goes on to fulfil his potential and becomes a QC, and then a Judge) and it is now too late for her to resume her career, she may receive an extra settlement, but to be honest, if the case OP is referring to falls into that category, they wouldn't be asking for help on MSE!

In summary - in my view this is a very fair offer, and the only things I would question is - how open is he being about his savings (if he has been planning his exit strategy for some time there may well be funds salted away that she doesn't know about and may never find out about) and whether she might be better negotiating a one-off lump sum in lieu of the ongoing maintenance - which would be my personal preference in this situation, but again that is just my opinion.

Daisy