Going Solo after 25 years

NewKittenHelp

Tish_P wrote: »

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.

There is no 'property of the partnership' because legally there is no partnership. If they had married then I would agree with you, but they didn't, and so they both took the risks that came with that.

He also said that she had savings because she had been secretly taking money from the family account to hide in her personal accounts, but you seem to think that's acceptable.

Tish_P

We were talking about moral rights last time I checked. It's very likely that she has no legal rights to his pension, and also very likely that he has no legal right to her savings. Morally, I'd argue they both deserve a share of each.

rpc

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

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".

If you choose not to enter into a binding legal and financial partnership (i.e. marriage) then I do not think you can expect to split as if one existed. Sharing hopes and dreams is one thing, sharing finances is another. If (as the OP and his partner did) you choose to share your lives but not your money, then that is a legitimate choice. It is totally unreasonable to attempt to redefine the partnership when it splits up.

If OP partner wanted a sizeable pension of her own, she should have arranged one. As partners, rather than spouses, it would have been unreasonable for her to expect a claim on his. If OP and wife wanted equal call on the savings, they could have made sure that they were held jointly (or in equal amounts). If they wanted to save all of that and create a legal agreement that all assets were shared, they could have done so. They did none of this. So the situation before the breakup is "what's mine is mine" and that should remain post-breakup.

rpc

Tish_P wrote: »

We were talking about moral rights last time I checked. It's very likely that she has no legal rights to his pension, and also very likely that he has no legal right to her savings. Morally, I'd argue they both deserve a share of each.

Why? Any moral rights should be based on a mutual understanding of their relationship. It is not moral to let someone believe that they are living with one arrangement, and then claim you actually had another. Absent any agreement that the pension was "theirs" and not "his", it is immoral to stake a claim to it just because they have broken up. They may have discussed, and agreed, that his pension would fund their retirement in which case he should split it. If they did not, then it is his to do with as he pleases legally and morally.

Tish_P

Because the OP said himself that the reason they didn't get married is because they agreed to "do the same thing without" that piece of paper. They had an agreement to a partnership and an expectation, as he put it, to be "on the journey together". I think morally it would be right to stand by that agreement and treat that partnership, which they both believed in, as real. Legally, you are quite right to point out that the situation is very different. I hope they find a solution they are both happy with and can move on without too much bitterness.

NewKittenHelp

Tish_P wrote: »

We were talking about moral rights last time I checked. It's very likely that she has no legal rights to his pension, and also very likely that he has no legal right to her savings. Morally, I'd argue they both deserve a share of each.

If we're talking solely morals, then it's not very moral for her to spend years siphoning off money for herself and in that case, she has shown that she isn't very moral at all and she has set the moral rules to abide by, which are to look after yourself first.

NewKittenHelp

Tish_P wrote: »

Because the OP said himself that the reason they didn't get married is because they agreed to "do the same thing without" that piece of paper. They had an agreement to a partnership and an expectation, as he put it, to be "on the journey together". I think morally it would be right to stand by that agreement and treat that partnership, which they both believed in, as real. Legally, you are quite right to point out that the situation is very different. I hope they find a solution they are both happy with and can move on without too much bitterness.

If she believed that then why did she secretly steal money from the family account?

Tish_P

Steal and siphon off are your words, not the OP's. The OP didnt even say she was deliberately keeping it secret, although she may have been, just that he didn't know until a few years back - which suggests either it was small amounts over a very long time (too long to be scheming a getaway) or he doesn't keep a close eye on finances and just lets her manage investments for them both. Anyway, saving secretly need not be for bad reasons or just for herself - if one partner admittedly tends to spend, the other can keep a stash for peace of mind or a rainy day provided it's available to both when needed. Or, in this case, when they break up.

NewKittenHelp

Tish_P wrote: »

Steal and siphon off are your words, not the OP's. The OP didnt even say she was deliberately keeping it secret, although she may have been, just that he didn't know until a few years back - which suggests either it was small amounts over a very long time (too long to be scheming a getaway) or he doesn't keep a close eye on finances and just lets her manage investments for them both. Anyway, saving secretly need not be for bad reasons or just for herself - if one partner admittedly tends to spend, the other can keep a stash for peace of mind or a rainy day provided it's available to both when needed. Or, in this case, when they break up.

Several years is a long time to just not mention something. It looks as if you want to paint the OP as someone who can't be trusted with money, who spends it as soon as he gets it, but that's clearly not the case given the reasonably large amounts of jointly held savings.

Please don't pretend that this situation is a big bad man coming to take the poor little put upon housewife to the cleaners leaving her with nothing but the rags she managed to salvage from the laundry basket. She will walk away with over £100,000 of jointly held assets - more than enough to help her on the way to becoming an independent adult.

Tish_P

I'm not in the slightest saying the OP is bad. I think they're both decent people who were together for 25 years, and whose break-up is sad but necessary. What remains is to fairly divide the assets, including savings. They are obviously both financially savvy people who have done well in a difficult economic climate. Good for them.

I've lost count of the times you've insinuated that the lower earner in a partnership is unproductive or a leech - and now, not even to be considered an adult! They have been interdependent adults; they will both now become independent adults. I wish them well with that.