Divorce - financial settlement advice please

Becles

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

One of the reasons for paying a solicitor Her ex will then have to deal with her solicitor - or have his solicitor deal with her solicitor.

If she feels he can bully her into a less favourable settlement, then maybe that's the one good reason for employing a solicitor. Especially as they know what the Courts are likely to agree to, in terms of what she's entitled to.

I agree with everything in this post.

Slightly different scenario, but I didn't get a clean break settlement on divorce (where your finances are split and there is no going back). Ex was all amicable and nice about it at the time, and we agreed a fair split.

Sometime later when house prices had gone up here, and ex had got himself into debt problems, he suddenly decided the split was no longer fair and came back demanding £10,000 off me :eek:

Ended up getting solicitors involved at that point. Mine saw his off and I got the clean break order, so I didn't have to pay him anything and never will again.

Anyway there's two points I want to make by telling your friend this:

1) Just because someone is amicable now, it doesn't mean that they will continue to be amicable in the future. Friendly verbal agreements are very easy to break. He could come back bigger and nastier in the future, so it is important to get things tied up properly and made official now, so your friend is secure and can move on with her life.

2) Make sure your friend gets a solicitor who is registered on the Family Law Panel. This means (s)he has done extra training and exams in Family Law and they will be an expert in these kinds of cases. Mine was on this panel, but to save costs, my ex hired a trainee criminal law solicitor, who basically didn't have a clue about family law. Lets just say my bloke wiped the floor with her

back2square1

In response to PINKSHOES.

My friend is not demanding 70/30 - that was solicitors advice. My friend is not demanding maintenance however she is the primary care giver and the law states the children are entitled to maintenance. The father has to provide financial support for his children until they are 16 at least. Maintenance has to be at the amount set out by CSA, which at the moment works out to be £372 pcm.

The access he has with his children is what he wanted, and because of the children staying overnight twice a week CSA reduce the maintenance to be paid by the father (reduction is - weekly amount divided by 7 and times by 2).

My friend positively encourages child access so the children can still have the benefits of their relationship with their dad. Also, the father texts, phone calls and emails the children everyday to keep regular contact.

The father does not wish to have custody of the children because his job is too important to him plus he knows there is no good reason why the courts would give him custody over their mother anyway.

MJMum

---

back2square1

She doesn't think she is entitled to more of the equity but she wants to know for definite that the law states whether or not it is 50/50 split. Like I said earlier she wants to be aware of all the exact facts when she is in discussions with her ex husband because he is very good at negotiating and could demand that he has more out of the equity. You would be surprised what he is like.

Just to put everyone in the picture a bit more, both my friend and ex husband have new partners now who they are living with. Both of their partners are in full time employment. Ex husbands partner is in a very well paid job like he is also. My friends new partner is not.

Both new partners are also going through divorce themselves. Both new partners have left their matrimonial homes to live with friend and ex husband. Friend remains in matrimonial home, ex husband is in rented accommodation.

Jet

back2square1 wrote: »

Just to put everyone in the picture a bit more, both my friend and ex husband have new partners now who they are living with. Both of their partners are in full time employment. Ex husbands partner is in a very well paid job like he is also. My friends new partner is not.

/QUOTE]

I think the courts would take this into account - divorce papers always ask if you are, or intend to re-marry or cohabit with someone else. But I'm not sure if it would affect your friend favourably or not.

Debt_Free_Chick

back2square1 wrote: »

She doesn't think she is entitled to more of the equity but she wants to know for definite that the law states whether or not it is 50/50 split.

The law does not specify what the split should be.

There is no presumption that each is entitled to half. There is no presumption that the wife is automatically entitled to one third or any other proportion . And the law does not favour women over men.

Instead there's a list of issues that the court must consider including present and future needs, resources and earning capacity of both husband and wife, their age, the length of their marriage and the contributions of each to the family finances.

However, first consideration is given to the welfare of the children.

Where the assets are sufficient to give both the husband & wife a home, then that is usually the preferred solution. However - it means "a" home and not a home of the same standard of the matrimonial home. So each is likely to have to compromise. The needs of the woman are likely to be different to that of the man, assuming the wife retains custody of the children - clearly, a different and probably bigger home is needed. And that home might only be needed for a relatively short period of time, until the kids are "standing on their own two feet".

Clearly there are a lot of urban myths surrounding divorce settlements, which is why it's important to be fully informed on what each party is entitled to. Consult someone who really knows (not me, I hasten to add) and remember that each situation is different. Just because someone in the pub (or here!) got a certain deal doesn't mean that anyone else is entitled to the same thing.:D

Jet

MJMum wrote: »

I can't understand why, if he is going to pay her maintenance for the children, she feels she is also entitled to a greater equity share in the house?

But this is standard practice if it's not feasible for the pwc to be bought out and to be in a position to house the children in a reasonable sized property. If selling the house would mean that the pwc could not provide reasonable accomodation for the children (ie. could only afford a 1 bed flat, if he/she has 2 kids) then the absent parent would be expected to provide a roof over their heads and if that meant not getting his/her share of the equity until the kids were grown up or getting less of it now, then that's how it works.

Maintenance is there to provide the everyday things for the children - food, clothing, heating and additional costs of having a larger property (which is only necessary because there are children living with the pwc).

Every case is different and without knowing every bit of financial information, it's difficult to comment accurately.

pinkshoes

If he's happy for her to have the kids for the majority of the time, ideally he should buy her out so she and the kids can stay in the family home. Since neither of the two seem strapped for cash, a 50/50 split would be the fairest option, then the husband could pay some child maintanence until they turn 18. What their new partners earn should be irrelavent and kept out the equation. Is he still paying his half of the mortgage? and is your friend helping him pay his half of his rent, seeing as he had to move out? and him paying for stuff for the kids?


I was just trying to see it from his point of view too, and why he would be getting so agressive over this. They obviously both loved each other at some point, and for quite a long period of time if they have 2 children together...

Can they not find a neutral mediation person who can sit down with the two of them and make them come to an agreement that they're both happy with? It would be in both their interests to do this, and to sit calmly and discuss it, with both being given chance to speak without interuption.

back2square1

Mediation is a possibility and is recommended as any part of a divorce. We do have to be careful of listening to others own experience of divorce. I have been recently divorced myself but every situation, circumstance and separation are different.

My friend is going to look at this thread when she has finished work because I have told her there are some good comments from other MSE forum users.

With regards to sitting down and discussing calmly with a third party present (same as mediation really), my friend is very concerned about because her ex husband is incredibly clever at negotiating - it is his job which may I add he is very good at which is why he earns alot of money working for an international company. He can come across as very convincing and it would be very difficult and awkward for her to try and stand her ground. Hence, why i started this thread to see if anyone could shed any light on some of the concerns she has.

I am not trying to be derogatory about her ex husband but believe you and me, he could convince us all today that it is Monday no matter how much we tried to disprove it. Unfortunately there are some very clever negotiators and for my friend she has the task of negotiating with one of the best, her ex husband.

loftus

As Debt Free Chick says there is no hard and fast rule. We know the equity but have very little detail as to the rest of the assets of the marriage ie income, pensions, savings, debts etc. so can't really say what is a fair division of assets. He may have a huge pension she could trade off for a greater share of the house.
The starting point is always 50-50- but that is all assets - and from then on the determining factor should be need. As the wife is the PWC then her needs may be greater, but if she can afford to buy her husband out of the family home on a 50-50 split without struggling then there should be no need to deviate from that. If they can agree CM and the husband is willing to pay more than CSA rates fine, but as said she should not rely on this continuing.
As both parties are cohabiting then there is no reason why they can not have a clean break apart from the payment of CM