Going Solo after 25 years

NewKittenHelp

Tish_P wrote: »

You're the one maintaining, without a shred of evidence, that she has been doing nothing to support herself until this point.

If you're going to claim all's fair in love and war, why isn't she entitled to the money she worked to save while finances were shared? Why is that "siphoning off" rather than clever financial management?

I'd argue they were a partnership and both have a moral right to shares of the assets of that partnership, including her savings and his pension.

It's siphoning it off because she hid it from him.;)

I'd argue that she has a moral responsibility to support herself and not steal (for that is what it is) from the person who has provided her with a very nice life. Or are morals only for when she stands to gain and not 'lose'?

Tish_P

He knows how much her savings are. If that's hiding, it's not very effective. I agree he is entitled to a share of money she has saved during the relationship, just as she is entitled to share the pension he has saved (not siphoned off) over the same period.

And with the "providing her with a nice life" thing we're back to the idea that a lower earning partner is not a contributor to a couple, which is exactly what I am objecting to. In most partnerships the lower earning partner (male or female) pulls their weight in other ways and by doing so earns the moral right to a share of all assets.

ALIBOBSY

My partner and I are married, but even without that any kind of partnership of this kind is just that. A PARTNERSHIP.

I think it would be utterly disgusting to spend the best part of a lifetime with someone, share your lifes, your hopes, your family, your love together and then turn around at the end and say actually cos I legally can I am throwing away anything we ever were to each other to totally screw you over.
This is about far more than just money and "legal positions".

Something to remember here for the OP is even if he is so morally bankcrupt as to think this is ok, there will be many family members and friends not to mention your child (children?) who will be extremely upset by this.

When our relationship started my OH was on a lot less pay than I was, but during the years we had kids and I went part time then on a carreer break, then full time then part time and finally am now a full time mum.

I do all the cooking and we both have done housework and childcare as and when we are available, obviously this means alot is done by me now, but has varied. At one point I did 2 part time jobs to fit around the kids and OH covered quite a bit of childcare. I deal with financial issues,pay the bills, organise the bank accounts and plan for pensions/saving etc, organise holidays and packing etc and am good at gardening. OH is good at car maintenance and does the heavy work/contruction stuff in the garden.

We are partners and together we plan and organise our and our families lives together. To spend 25 years like that and to throw it all away to be selfish and greedy would be terrible.

Forget the court and judges etc. Sit down with the women you have shared most of your adult life with and work out how to ensure you both have enough to move on and live your lives.

I would say a 50/50 split of all is fair, remember she will likely have a much more reduced lifestyle that you as she is unlikely to be in a position to earn what you can in the short period before you both retire. Depending on the house value the above mentioned idea of you taking your pension and her the house, plus a split of any savings gives you both a chance to move on and perhaps even stay friends (one day you may well be attending your child(s) wedding/christenings together, surely better all around to be on good terms.

One final thought I don't know what the reasons for the split are, but if noone else is involved, given the lifetime investment (financial, and emotional) you have both made, the shared memories, family etc are you sure councilling couldn't help avoid the split at the least it would help to have a third inpartial party help you come to an agreement together on how to split your lives and at best you may rediscover the people you both fell in love with and be able to move on to a new happier life together.
Many couples spend years being mum and dad and forget how to be "us", once the kids start moving on is the time to work hard not to split up as it is just the time when many marriages struggle.
Good luck to you both
Ali x

Tish_P

Alibobsy: I don't think the OP is planning to behave that shoddily, he just wanted to know where he stood and the argument sprang up as a bit of a derail.

I suppose it's always good to get a reminder that it does matter whether you get that "just a piece of paper" from a legal standpoint. My OH and I despite 10 years together would in our current financial situation probably not have trouble divvying stuff up if (god forbid) we split, but if we had kids or one of us lost a job and became financially dependent we'd probably tie that knot quick sharp.

NewKittenHelp

Tish_P wrote: »

He knows how much her savings are. If that's hiding, it's not very effective. I agree he is entitled to a share of money she has saved during the relationship, just as she is entitled to share the pension he has saved (not siphoned off) over the same period.

And with the "providing her with a nice life" thing we're back to the idea that a lower earning partner is not a contributor to a couple, which is exactly what I am objecting to. In most partnerships the lower earning partner (male or female) pulls their weight in other ways and by doing so earns the moral right to a share of all assets.

He knows now, he didn't for the years that she was doing it. That's hiding it. That's siphoning it off. Why hide it if it was completely above board?

He's entitled to the money that's in his name, nothing else. Just as she is entitled to the money in her name. She is not entitled to his pension at all. Neither legally or morally, and actually I'd be surprised if she could even be legally gifted part of his pension without being married.

He provided her with a life that she couldn't have otherwise achieved, for 25 years. She chose to not marry so when it ended she has to now support herself as an independent adult. She obviously knew this as she was secretly siphoning off the 'family' money for herself.

Tish_P

If their partnership was like 99% of partnerships she also provided him with a life he could not otherwise have achieved. This includes by contributing in other ways than financially. Partners support each other in valuable ways that include but are not restricted to money, neither is "living off" the other. I don't understand why you consider this this such a controversial statement.

NewKittenHelp

Tish_P wrote: »

If their partnership was like 99% of partnerships she also provided him with a life he could not otherwise have achieved. This includes by contributing in other ways than financially. Partners support each other in valuable ways that include but are not restricted to money, neither is "living off" the other. I don't understand why you consider this this such a controversial statement.

She certainly did. He may have met someone who wouldn't systematically steal from him for years, and may have financially contributed equally so they would have had an even better lifestyle. But obviously your statistical knowledge of 100% of the relationships in this country trumps common sense. When did you carry out this detailed study? I can't remember you asking us.

You probably wouldn't understand it given that you find her stealing acceptable.

Tish_P

I think he has the right to share her savings, as she has the right to share his, because they accumulated those savings as a partnership. So no, I don't support anyone stealing.

And again, non-financial contributions also improve the lifestyle of a couple.

NewKittenHelp

Tish_P wrote: »

I think he has the right to share her savings, as she has the right to share his, because they accumulated those savings as a partnership. So no, I don't support anyone stealing.

And again, non-financial contributions also improve the lifestyle of a couple.

Her savings are a result of her secretly stealing money that he provided for the family, probably to the detriment of the family. Legally, and actually I'd say morally too - they were in a relationship but they were not a partnership. They decided not to marry and make themselves a legal partnership, as a result what's hers is her and what's his is his. He has no obligation to keep her 'in the lifestyle she has become accustomed to' and she must know support herself, you know, like the rest of us have to. I don't understand why that concept is so alien to you.

Tish_P

She and he have supported each other for the last 25 years. Both must now take their fair share of the assets, which include her savings and his pension, and each support themselves in future. After the split, she will be supporting herself and he will be supporting himself.

The OP said that she had more savings than him because "I spend it". She could put that money away because she spent less, and had they stayed together it would be both of theirs. It is the property of the partnership and shouls be divided accordingly.