Question on maintenance for my mum.

Oldernotwiser

loftus wrote: »

£1000 a month doesn't go far when paying a mortgage, bills and food. She would have needed to make substantial payments into a pension to build up a sufficient pot to have a comfortable retirement - so would need to be working and earning quite a bit too.
It sounds like dad has got away with a good settlement. What was the equity that she got £10k from? Why were the savings plans not included as marital assets?
I realise there is no point crying over spilt milk, but if dads income is as substantial as is being made out I think he has come out of this pretty well.

But OP said that mum was working full time. "My mum has since worked full time to support herself and my two younger sisters." £1,000 per month plus full time earnings isn't bad going. Most of us would consider ourselves able to manage pretty well if we received a sum of money every month that covered the mortgage and council tax, leaving our earnings to pay for everything else, particularly if there was an extra sum coming in each month to cover most of the dependent children's maintenance.

Oldernotwiser

Frugal_Fox wrote: »

She has had to take a mortgage out until she is 65 to purchase the 3 bed she is in. !

But surely that means that when she retires, at 65, she'll have the £800 that now pays the mortgage, available for her to live on?

I keep thinking that I've missed something somewhere. From what you're saying, at 65 your mother will have most of her state pension plus £1,000 (tax paid?) a month to live on and a 3 bed house in an expensive part of the world, fully paid for. On top of this there'd be any private pension she'd accrued in the meantime. I know that we all have different standards in these areas but it doesn't sound like "scrimping and saving" to me! Have I got something wrong somewhere?

loftus

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But surely that means that when she retires, at 65, she'll have the £800 that now pays the mortgage, available for her to live on?

I keep thinking that I've missed something somewhere. From what you're saying, at 65 your mother will have most of her state pension plus £1,000 (tax paid?) a month to live on and a 3 bed house in an expensive part of the world, fully paid for. On top of this there'd be any private pension she'd accrued in the meantime. I know that we all have different standards in these areas but it doesn't sound like "scrimping and saving" to me! Have I got something wrong somewhere?

What we're missing is what the court order says!

It was me who said about spousal maintenance for life. The OP has never said anything about it. It may run until the husbands retirement.

And judgement is being made on how individuals look at the figures. If the mother was part of a high earning household and used to a high standard of living then £1000 a month may not be very much in comparison. Particularly if she gave up the chance of a career for the sake of her husband and family.

Look at Mrs Charman - she doesn't "need" £48 million to get by - but it is deemed fair by a judge in relation to what her husband earnsand the lifestyle she was used to.

Oldernotwiser

I did say that we all have different standards about money and I take your point about some of these "celebrity" divorces. I'm sure I asked the OP how long her mother gets this maintenance for but I don't think there's been an answer ro this.
On the other hand, phrases like "scrimping and saving" have been used and we're talking about a situation that's existed for many years so I would expect that adjustments have been made by now. I keep wondering if I've missed something here (as have other posters) but the OP hasn't filled us in.

Scarlett1

oh now I see the bit about frugals mum working full time so thats answered my question.

Scarlett1

loftus wrote: »

If the mother was part of a high earning household and used to a high standard of living then £1000 a month may not be very much in comparison. Particularly if she gave up the chance of a career for the sake of her husband and family.

if thats the case then in respect of a divorce the woman shouldnt expect to live the same as what she did when she was part of the marriage, I dont like all this making money out of marriage and think that maintenace should be for children only, this isnt the dark ages and women are capable of earning their own money no matter what their age, I think this spousal maintenance should be scrapped.

loftus

Scarlett1 wrote: »

if thats the case then in respect of a divorce the woman shouldnt expect to live the same as what she did when she was part of the marriage, I dont like all this making money out of marriage and think that maintenace should be for children only, this isnt the dark ages and women are capable of earning their own money no matter what their age, I think this spousal maintenance should be scrapped.

In most situations I agree - but you have to look at the individual circumstances case by case. If you are married for a long time and it was a joint decision that the woman not work in order to bring up the children and look after the home then the woman does not have the chance to build up a pension fund. The understanding would have been that the husbands career would provide for both of them in retirement.
Under these circumstances the woman has played a role in the development of her husbands career so why should she be expected to have a huge drop in lifestyle when he carries on his own merry way - particularly in cases like this when he has decided the marriage is over and when, if Frugal Fox is correct in her suspicions, he has been minimising his assets to plan for the separation.
FF's mother is earning and paying a mortgage - but when starting paying into a pension fund in your mid 40's you would need to make huge contributions to guarantee a secure retirement. This would be next to impossible for her.
I don't think we are living in the dark ages because we believe it is fair that a woman's contribution to her husbands prosperity is recognised.

Oldernotwiser

loftus wrote: »

I don't think we are living in the dark ages because we believe it is fair that a woman's contribution to her husbands prosperity is recognised.

I think that £12,000 a year for 10 - 20 years (if not for life) is a pretty good recognition of 17 years of marriage!

Broken_hearted

loftus wrote: »

£1000 a month doesn't go far when paying a mortgage, bills and food. .

As a family of four we live on less!

savagevixen

Broken_hearted wrote: »

As a family of four we live on less!

unbeleivable and unhelpful and really a bit rude