Divorce. How can I agree a fair settlement

Treevo

Everything goes into the pot - including your inheritance. As your children are pretty much adults, you'll have a tough time convincing any judge that you're entitled to more than 50% of the marital assets.

Tot up everything (including pensions) and then split them 50/50. That way you may be able to keep the house, while he'll keep his pension etc.

ETA: Everything goes into the pot - including any assets you own - e.g. any shares of property you own but don't live in. They are all marital assets to be split.

mgdavid

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I don't think inheritance during the marriage is a matrimonial asset, though.

where did that come from, are you abe to quote any precedent?

Netwizard

Crikey, I just popped in to have a read of this. Didn't know you had to split things like inheritance and pensions 50/50! Certainly puts me off the idea of getting married ever!

Best of luck OP

Treevo

Netwizard wrote: »

Crikey, I just popped in to have a read of this. Didn't know you had to split things like inheritance and pensions 50/50! Certainly puts me off the idea of getting married ever!

Best of luck OP

Why would you think differently?

neverdespairgirl

mgdavid wrote: »

where did that come from, are you abe to quote any precedent?

It's a messy distinction, between matrimonial property and non-matrimonial property, but relevant. It can be up for division, but it's not the 50:50 starting point.


See the case of P v P [2005] 1 FLR 576


22. This does not mean that, when exercising his discretion, a judge in this country must treat all property in the same way. The statute requires the court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. One
of the circumstances is that there is a real difference, a difference of source, between (1) property acquired during the marriage otherwise than by inheritance or gift, sometimes called the marital acquest but more usually the matrimonial property, and (2) other property. The former is the financial product of the parties' common endeavour, the latter is not. The parties' matrimonial home, even if this was brought into the marriage at the outset by one of the parties, usually has a central place in any marriage.

So it should normally be treated as matrimonial property for this purpose. As already noted, in principle the entitlement of each party to a share of the matrimonial property is the same however long or short



23. The matter stands differently regarding property ('non-
matrimonial property') the parties bring with them into the marriage or acquire by inheritance or gift during the marriage. Then the duration of
the marriage will be highly relevant.

Treevo

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It's a messy distinction, between matrimonial property and non-matrimonial property, but relevant. It can be up for division, but it's not the 50:50 starting point.


See the case of P v P [2005] 1 FLR 576


22. This does not mean that, when exercising his discretion, a judge in this country must treat all property in the same way. The statute requires the court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. One
of the circumstances is that there is a real difference, a difference of source, between (1) property acquired during the marriage otherwise than by inheritance or gift, sometimes called the marital acquest but more usually the matrimonial property, and (2) other property. The former is the financial product of the parties' common endeavour, the latter is not. The parties' matrimonial home, even if this was brought into the marriage at the outset by one of the parties, usually has a central place in any marriage.

So it should normally be treated as matrimonial property for this purpose. As already noted, in principle the entitlement of each party to a share of the matrimonial property is the same however long or short



23. The matter stands differently regarding property ('non-
matrimonial property') the parties bring with them into the marriage or acquire by inheritance or gift during the marriage. Then the duration of
the marriage will be highly relevant.

The inheritance was inherited nearly a decade ago, years into a twenty year plus marriage. It's safe to say that everything will be treated as matrimonial property.

I can see both sides of this situation. On the one hand the OP feels like her inheritance should be protected, but on the other hand her husband feels like the inheritance only exists because he's been paying the bills for two decades, and if he hadn't, then it would have been used for bills.

I had a look at the OP's other threads as I remembered her last one, and it seems she also has a 25% stake in another property which would complicate matters. It wouldn't be fair for the OP to walk away from the marriage with a £320,000 house, £30,000 in savings and a 25% share in another property, while her ex walked away with just his pension. Not unless the pension was worth upwards of £500,000 (depending on the value of the other house).

I can see why the OP would think her inheritance should be hers, but equally, it was inherited during the marriage and it's not her husband's fault that the OP won't 'realise' her investment in the property. So the OP may be faced with the choice of selling her share or having to wait for it, in return for taking a smaller cut of the other matrimonial assets now. Which may mean having to sell the house. I don't envy her position.

FBaby

For example, did you take time off work to bring up your children, meaning that your career (if you had one) did not progress as far as it would otherwise have?

I just felt compelled to comment on this as it is often quoted, maybe because it is indeed an element considered by a judge?

Surely unless you trained as a solicitor, doctor or similar and worked in the field for a few years before having children and deciding commonly that the wife would stay at home to look after the kids, no-one could assume what one's career would have been if they had continued to work?

Not only this can only be based on assumptions that the wife would now be earning a good salary, but it assumes it was a common decision when it might very well be that the husband would have preferred the wife to continue to work (and maybe pay for a nanny), but it is the wife who insisted she didn't want to have children and not be there for the children and the husband agreed reluctantly for the sake of the marriage?

How to prove either and use these assumptions to decide how assets should be divided?

clumsymoo

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

As I explained in the original post, the facts are I have 2 children who will be staying with me and at the ages they are I will not be able to claim any kind of benefits, or seek help from say the CSA so although they are classed as non dependants they are still dependent on me for the foreseeable future. That is why I am thinking it may not be a straightforward 50/50.

I have spoken to 2 solicitors this week who have told me this and both also said he would have to prove that he needs the inheritance money which was put aside for our children's future.
They advised me that they look at things like loss of earnings when I was not working bringing up our family, future earnings, maintaining a standard of living.

We will both have aprox £120 k after the sale of the house but I am unlikely to be able to take on a mortgage on my part time wage and I have to stay in this area for the children. I will need a 2-3 bedroom house whereas he a 1 bedroom property and he has talked of moving away which would also be cheaper for him. He has options that I don't.

I can see we may need mediation and I'd love to hear from someone who has been through this.

It is complicated. These things always are.

justme111

You asked about what was fair.
Then you had solicitors telling you what could you get. Which is not necessarily the same. If you want to go with what solicitors say and ask for maximum -your choice. Would not be fair in many people's eyes. But its your life , your choice.

CH27

clumsymoo wrote: »

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

As I explained in the original post, the facts are I have 2 children who will be staying with me and at the ages they are I will not be able to claim any kind of benefits, or seek help from say the CSA so although they are classed as non dependants they are still dependent on me for the foreseeable future. That is why I am thinking it may not be a straightforward 50/50.

I have spoken to 2 solicitors this week who have told me this and both also said he would have to prove that he needs the inheritance money which was put aside for our children's future.
They advised me that they look at things like loss of earnings when I was not working bringing up our family, future earnings, maintaining a standard of living.

We will both have aprox £120 k after the sale of the house but I am unlikely to be able to take on a mortgage on my part time wage and I have to stay in this area for the children. I will need a 2-3 bedroom house whereas he a 1 bedroom property and he has talked of moving away which would also be cheaper for him. He has options that I don't.

I can see we may need mediation and I'd love to hear from someone who has been through this.

It is complicated. These things always are.

He has two children who may wish to stay with him.
You cannot dictate what he needs.