Separated, how much should I provide?

quidsy

I would say that is an unequal sqplit & that you should refuse on the point on her being free of debt but you still needing a mortgage to live. Point out that once she gets a job she should be in a good position to secure a small mortgage with a large deposit and that you will be doing the same. I would also only agree to a quarter share of pension as she will presumably be getting one when she gets a job.

Write everything you think of down, go to mediation with clear notees & good luck.

harz99

I am no expert in these matters, but I do not understand the apparent accepted view that ex is able to move to another nicer area and JackRS pay the much higher price for it?


Surely ex has friends contacts etc. in the the area she currently lives in as she has raised her family there?


Should JackRS also be pointing to smaller properties in the current area which ex could move to that would be a more reasonable cost, as well as those in ex's preferred area?

JackRS

harz99 wrote: »

I am no expert in these matters, but I do not understand the apparent accepted view that ex is able to move to another nicer area and JackRS pay the much higher price for it?


Surely ex has friends contacts etc. in the the area she currently lives in as she has raised her family there?


Should JackRS also be pointing to smaller properties in the current area which ex could move to that would be a more reasonable cost, as well as those in ex's preferred area?

Thanks and yes I've made that point that I would also like to move back to the coast near my family and be able to enjoy my hobbies on the water. However I can't because my job is here so don't have the choice. in terms of adequate housing I will identify what is available in the current area to meet her basic needs. For more expensive area I don't see why I should be liable. I also pointed out that she could be applying for jobs in both areas as surely employment determines where most of us have to live. Her argument is that our son is on a course in the south and he also has a job there, the course has one more year to run but he could transfer the course to this area for the final year or continue living with grandparents for another year...

nicegirl

I hope that the chat with the solicitor is helpful later, and that you make some progress with the mediation.

At the moment it all seems horribly unbalanced, in your ex's favour. It really isn't fair.

JackRS

nicegirl wrote: »

I hope that the chat with the solicitor is helpful later, and that you make some progress with the mediation.

At the moment it all seems horribly unbalanced, in your ex's favour. It really isn't fair.

Thanks what a 'nice girl' you are......however I fear that it being fair isn't a requirement?

kelpie35

Once again Jack my heart goes out to you.

I have no advice to offer you other than stay strong.

I am a great believer in karma.

Take care

Mojisola

harz99 wrote: »

I am no expert in these matters, but I do not understand the apparent accepted view that ex is able to move to another nicer area and JackRS pay the much higher price for it?

Several of us have said how unfair this is. What she's asking for isn't equality but betterment.

I can't understand why the ex thinks she's entitled to move to a much more expensive part of the country. She should be looking at the houses locally and then, if she wants to move, it's up to her to find the difference in the price.

ampersand

'Her argument is that our son is on a course in the south and he also has a job there'

Jack, I cannot imagine any young male adult /late adolescent ditto, remotely welcoming maman's pretence/reason for moving to be near him.

Far from wholesome anyway.

Further, if all of her heavy loaded demands have you bailed into some indeterminate relentless future, that future roof involves only one person/ i.e. 1-bedroom[as for all claimants currently], unless she has more children, which won't be via you.

harz makes a good point re: ex having 'contacts etc. in the the area she currently lives in as she has raised her family there?'
Note I edited out 'friends'.
Jack is always careful to be fair and say nothing outside his own knowledge or observation, but one wonders how ex was seen by disinterested others throughout the marriage. No need to comment Jack. We'll have our own thoughts.

In another setting, ex. would be given tide-over relief only, while she re-located, cut cloth accordingly, took offered work, pending Hearing. Refusals not allowed. This 'show willing' and taste of reality would work in her favour and equip her for Real Life as it presently is.

nicegirl

JackRS wrote: »

Thanks what a 'nice girl' you are......however I fear that it being fair isn't a requirement?

It should be!

I'm sure if you say the word, us MSE lot will head down there with our pitchforks and sort it out!:D

Somerset

JackRS wrote: »

.however I fear that it being fair isn't a requirement?

I haven't commented on this thread before as I felt I had nothing relevant to add (no divorce experience).


It just feels like your solicitor isn't much of a fighter. That she is 'rolling over' and is compromise-happy.


What struck me about the latest comments is, everything seems to be predicated on 'this' particular point in time - which will change (inevitably).


Lump sum payment to ex of (TBC depending on housing needs
- Ex's house must be in X (expensive) area as son there. Son's whereabouts will change but house purchase monies lost (from the pot) forever.
On the basis of the above, you may have less capital, but your income and pension will be your own. If all your income is your own too, and liabilities are discharged, you may be able to make additional payments to your mortgage
- Equally, you could be made redundant next week and get a mortgage how ?? Your job and income is not guaranteed. Your wife gets the capital now but you get the opportunity to re-earn the capital ?? If the opportunity disappears, where does that leave you ?
The court would look at what ex reasonable needs are, as opposed to her income from all sources. If there is a shortfall, then the court may look to you to bridge that shortfall, but it is not a case of simply equalising your income
- I assume this is spousal maintenance ? So you do have to 'top up' what the court deems her living costs to be. Also it contradicts your solicitors statement above that ''your income will be your own''. If she's basing the capital split on 'that' how can it be binned in the next calculation ?


Best of luck. I'm female but can understand how bitter parties can feel during/after a divorce.