Separated, how much should I provide?

justme111

I was thinking on the same lines , gonzo.
I can envisage a danger to children in this layout though as it may not be in Itheir best interests to be propped financially to such an extent . I did not.mention it before as thoughts that aim justifies the means and surely.jack will manage the situation in the future.

ampersand

Should be long gone, but was drawn back to first pages, where ames and RAS were warning exactly what is the state of play now.

So, as RAS re-states: 'She wants the whole house; plus whole life spousal maintenance. Offering the house will not make a difference.'

I go further. Any such offer, any increase, any groundshift is seen by ex as 'MY case for Me proven.' Precedent set, so to be leveraged. I do not believe ex attended mediation with any intent to compromise.

JackRS

found this post extracted some key points below:

http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/Divorce-Advice/General-Divorce/132493-Spousal-Maintenance.html

Who can apply?

The person with the lower income of the two parties to the marriage. Even today this is usually the wife, but there is nothing stopping a lower earning husband from applying. The key factor is that there is a disparity in incomes. Unlike the other financial orders a spouse who has remarried cannot apply, even if the remarriage took place after the application was made.
How do you apply?

Using a Form A. It is rare to apply for periodical payments in isolation; usually the application forms part of the global application for ancillary relief. There is the option to apply during the course of the proceedings for maintenance pending suit, which is the subject of a further article.
What is it for?

Put simply, it is to maintain the lower earning party. Since the case of McFarlane (http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed2060) the courts are now entitled to factor in a compensatory element to periodical payments, for example where wife gave up a career to raise children. So while the general rule was that the receiver had to prove need and the payer had to demonstrate an ability to pay; the onus is no longer on the “need” of the receiving party especially in higher income families.

RAS

JackRS

I appreciate that you earn a good income but these families are in a completely different bracket.

In the Miller case the husband income was somewhere towards 20 times your income and the assets 10 times as much in property alone.

Plus junior Miller was 6 so it was assumed that Mrs Miller's earning potential was compromised until secondary school age.

And they agreed positively that Mrs Miller would halt her highly lucrative employment to raise the children.

MacFarlane had capital valued at £6m+?

Somewhere here you mentioned that MrsJRS went back to work at some point as a teaching assistant.

But decided that it was too stressful???? So you agreed she would do the household stuff leaving you only the gardening and decorating at weekends? Some deal that.

That is not the same as agreeing that she would sacrifice her career to support you in promoting yours; nor has she been trailed round the world preventing her working so that you could gain promotions.

Bonfire77

There is "disparity in income" and then there is "willful disparity in income" --- which is Mrs. Jack's case. Like I pointed out before, if she wanted to work harder (or work at all, period, duh) then she could raise her potential to earn. I agree with RAS in that you should not let that guilt trip of "she quit her job and raised the kids so I could work and now I owe her" come into the picture AT ALL. She chose not to work when the kids were old enough and now there is still a glaringly obvious lack of willingness to work...again her choice. Not your problem.

Bonfire77

I can envisage a danger to children in this layout though as it may not be in their best interests to be propped financially to such an extent" --- Forgive me Justme11 if i am reading what you are saying wrong, but I do feel it's really important that Jack does all he can for his daughter just starting out in London. She is only 20. I'm saying this because I pretty much raised myself since I was 15 and my father is plenty wealthy enough..and it's worse for me because I know how much he has. I've struggled plenty and it's made me who I am today, but it's a horrid feeling. Your daughter is smart and either she will read this thread (easy to do) or she already knows what you are earning etc. Daughters need their fathers, and it doesn't mean that she will be in danger of always running to him for everything ... like Mom does now.

gonzo127

justme111 wrote: »

I was thinking on the same lines , gonzo.
I can envisage a danger to children in this layout though as it may not be in Itheir best interests to be propped financially to such an extent . I did not.mention it before as thoughts that aim justifies the means and surely.jack will manage the situation in the future.

this 'danger' could surely be minimised with a add on stating the 'support' for the adult children would continue for x amount of years, or until they are earning x amount a year, or until they have a full time job or .......what ever is accetpable to Jack

i just think that reducing the maintenance to ex will be easier to explain by using the same amount of money directed to the children - who no longer live with her - to allow them to be more independant, and easier to reduce to kids as they get a bit older than trying to reduce it to a bitter ex wife

RAS

JackRS

I am going to put a bit of a damper on things because I am a bit older than you.

I have the good fortune to still be earning a reasonable salary as I head towards my earliest retirement date. Less than you but I actually have more assets (inheritance as well as house).

I spent a large chunk of my fifties expecting to be made redundant and would probably not have been able to find an alternative at the same salary (worked into a bit of a niche).

I assume you are in industry? What is the employment profile for older men? How many manage to stay until retirement age? You have mentioned redundancy in previous posts?

What happens if your income drops? You have high outgoings because of the mortgage and cannot be expected to carry on paying madam.

Also if you are giving her equity in exchange for the pension pot, all SM halts when you take your pension.

You have very admirably said that you do not want anything that madam might inherit.

I think that if the courts insist on spousal maintenance, you insist that the inheritance or large gifts are in the pot until the SM ends.

Looking at what I think you earn net and what I think madam could earn net (more than NMW after 3 years), I think that a 1/3 joint income could leave you paying £4-5K per annum SM.

But if one takes into account your £12K per annum mortgage cost, then there would be no SM at that point.

RAS

gonzo127 wrote: »

this 'danger' could surely be minimised with a add on stating the 'support' for the adult children would continue for x amount of years, or until they are earning x amount a year, or until they have a full time job or .......what ever is accetpable to Jack

i just think that reducing the maintenance to ex will be easier to explain by using the same amount of money directed to the children - who no longer live with her - to allow them to be more independant, and easier to reduce to kids as they get a bit older than trying to reduce it to a bitter ex wife

Nice if Jack could afford that long term. In practice if he has a £1000 per month mortgage then there will not be enough.

And he could find himself on a lower income.

gonzo127

RAS wrote: »

Nice if Jack could afford that long term. In practice if he has a £1000 per month mortgage then there will not be enough.

And he could find himself on a lower income.

I am thinking short term at the moment, to limit the precedent set for spousal maintenance, by moving said money directly to children with a set 'tipping' point in which it is stopped to try and cover those sorts of possibilities.