Divorce. How can I agree a fair settlement

clumsymoo

Really? Wow, where did you get those figures from justme111? I am guessing you are male and been through a bitter divorce. As I said before you are not being helpful just judgemental and you are in receipt of only some of the facts. Go troll someone else

Treevo

clumsymoo wrote: »

Thanks Kayalana, no you didn't offend me at all.
I wouldn't go to the CSA anyway but my 17yr old is just starting a paid apprenticeship so they will even be stopping my child benefit. It's only min wage bless him he has offered to pay me rent.

All I want at the end of the day is to be able to put a roof over my kids heads and food on the table. I'm not out to screw him over and sorry if that is how this is coming across.

I think you're running the risk of appearing to want to screw him over because you think your savings should be yours alone.

You're not in the best position here. If he wanted to he could make your life very difficult by going after 50% of everything which could leave you in the position of having to choose to be able to house yourself or sell your mother's home.

You need to sit down and make a list of all of your assets. And do the same for his. Don't try to hide anything because you'll be found out eventually.

Then tot up the totals and divide it in two. Then move assets around so you both get 50% of the value. It's worth going into mediation knowing what you need to keep (your mother's home for example) and what you would want to keep (your house). Then use it to your advantage - he may want to keep his pension whole because he's a lot closer to retirement than you are. And actually with twenty five years plus of working ahead of you - he's in a much stronger position to argue for more of the assets than you. But you'd find it easier to get another mortgage than he would.

It's a balancing act.

justme111

Op , i just made a grotesque hyperbole of your train of thoughts , intention was mot to offend but to give you another perspective of it.. I for once do think 50/50 split would be unfair to you , after all your career suffered because of kids and although they are or soon to be technically adult and by the book can not count on your support I do not think no allowance should be made for them at all. I hope your ex sees it this way too. It's just that you seemed to want to shift all burden onto ex with him being ridden by mortgage at 52, not being able to accommodate kids if they come to visit and on premises
"What's mine is mine (inheritances) and what's yours is mostly mine as well. If I got this impression from your posts he may be getting this impression as well hence his defensive attitude.

clumsymoo

If anyone cares to go back and read my OP I have never said that I wanted to keep all my inheritance or take his pension. You have all assumed that.
I was merely trying to paint a picture of what assets there were to be considered and stated what I had been told by 2 independent solicitors.

Kayalana99

justme111 wrote: »

Kajalana , if you look at numbers it appears the op wants like 80/20 - she wants to keep inheritance , to keep 25% stake in another property, get part of his pension and get a house mortgage free which would I guess meanlile at least 70%30 split on equity.

I don't know why you have singled me out with this post saying this but ofc the op wants 80/20 or even 100% ....who wouldn't (even those who agree to a mutual spilt of 50/50 who can 'say' they don't just want to take it all deep deep down even if they know its the wrong thing to do )

But I know she isn't going to get that. Which is why I suggested the 50/50 spilt with the clause she gets to keep the house untill the kids are done with thier education.

I don't come on here to judge, I come on here to help.

justme111

Where did I get the figures - from your posts. I might be wrong but how do you know I am wrong if you have not done math yourself.

Valli

clumsymoo wrote: »

If anyone cares to go back and read my OP I have never said that I wanted to keep all my inheritance or take his pension. You have all assumed that.
I was merely trying to paint a picture of what assets there were to be considered and stated what I had been told by 2 independent solicitors.

I haven't assumed that - BUT if you haven't got a pension then you coming out of a settlement without a pension or a comparable asset is not going to happen.* A judge has to consider what's best/fairest for both of you NOW and in the future. If you have not got sufficient pension provision then who is going to fund your retirement? This is why the courts aim to ensure a settlement which reflects the needs of both parties as far as is possible both at the time of divorce and in later life.
This is why the rulings were changed a few years back to ensure that wives (who had not built up sufficient pension in their own rights) were not left high and dry come retirement.
He could keep all his pension but that would give you a higher proportion of other assets such as property, from which you might realise a retirement income by say, letting or by selling and buying an annuity, for example.

Have you been advised to undertake a mediation process by either of the solicitors to whom you have spoken? Willing participation in mediation is practically a pre-requisite nowadays, before financial hearings anyway.


*unless you have a spectacularly incompetent solicitor that is!

Gloomendoom

Kayalana99 wrote: »

I don't know why you have singled me out with this post saying this but ofc the op wants 80/20 or even 100% ....who wouldn't (even those who agree to a mutual spilt of 50/50 who can 'say' they don't just want to take it all deep deep down even if they know its the wrong thing to do )

Me. It never crossed my mind to keep everything for myself.

Kayalana99

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Me. It never crossed my mind to keep everything for myself.

I wouldn't keep everything myself either, but if I had the choice of 50k instead of 100k ofc I would want the 100k....doesn't mean I would take it but like I said im not here to judge what the OP wants and end day she just wants to keep the roof over her head for her and the kids even if that means getting more then 50%

Don't blame her for it at all.

clumsymoo

justme111 wrote: »

Kajalana , if you look at numbers it appears the op wants like 80/20 - she wants to keep inheritance , to keep 25% stake in another property, get part of his pension and get a house mortgage free which would I guess meanlile at least 70%30 split on equity.

Not once have I mentioned 80/20 or part of his pension or a house mortgage free. I live in London so I couldn't buy a garden shed mortgage free