Question on maintenance for my mum.

loftus

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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!

Thats totally depends on what the husbands income is and what the lifestyle was. Because it seems a lot to you doesn't mean it is to the OPs mother. If the husband is on 100,000k plus than frankly - no it's not.

loftus

Broken_hearted wrote: »

As a family of four we live on less!

And that is relevant how?

Many people live on less - 99% of the people in the country have less than the £48million awarded to Mrs Charman. It isn't about comparing what you, I or David Beckham has in comparison to the OPs mother - it's about what is fair in relation to what lifestyle she had when married, what agreement there was between her and her ex husband.

Oldernotwiser

But why should someone expect to carry on the same lifestyle after they're divorced? Everybody's lifestyle changes after divorce for goodness sake! I can understand a period of transition but you shouldn't see marrying someone as being a meal ticket for life.

The main point I was making is that the OP said her mother had had her own full time earnings plus £10,000 spousal maintenance plus generous child maintenance for the last 10 years and hadn't been able to afford to pay into a pension. Regardless of whether she was on less money than she was used to having, this seems a perfectly adequate income to allow for making pension contributions!

Oldernotwiser

savagevixen wrote: »

unbeleivable and unhelpful and really a bit rude

SV I know that you and Broken Hearted have been having rows on the Bankruptcy board but bringing it over here seems to me to smack of some kind of cyber stalking. I've had to stop reading the bankruptcy board because of the unpleasant nature of your comments there and the way in which you've been stirring up trouble. Please don't bring your attitude over to this thread. We may have been disagreeing on issues but the discussion has been courteous up until now and I for one would like it to remain so.

loftus

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But why should someone expect to carry on the same lifestyle after they're divorced? Everybody's lifestyle changes after divorce for goodness sake! I can understand a period of transition but you shouldn't see marrying someone as being a meal ticket for life.
The main point I was making is that the OP said her mother had had her own full time earnings plus £10,000 spousal maintenance plus generous child maintenance for the last 10 years and hadn't been able to afford to pay into a pension. Regardless of whether she was on less money than she was used to having, this seems a perfectly adequate income to allow for making pension contributions!

How much do you think the OPs mother would need to accumulate to build a big enough pension pot? I would reckon she would need to be paying the majority of her maintenance payments into a pension plan to build a reasonable pension - possibly more. Plus for part of this time she was supoorting her children.
And you refuse to look past the figures here because you judge £1000 a month to be generous. I am not arguing that it isn't or that there are lots of people surviving on the same or less. But in divorce settlements the figures are arrived at by looking at the total pot available, the earning potential of the parties and career scarifices made during the marriage.
I go back to Mrs Charman as an extreme example - and you can look at countless showbiz break-ups as well. The judge here didnt say - "Well Mrs Charman I think you can live perfectly adequately on the £20 million your husband has offered" The judgement was based on the couples wealth - as she was judged to have made an equal contribution to building that wealth through bringing up children and supporting her husband - and her share was judged to be £48 million.
The OP was probably never going to have the same lifestyle post divorce because she doesn't have the same opportunities to career build as her ex husband. But just because £1000 seems generous to most of us doesn't necessarily mean it is fair.
Plus we have no idea what her fulltime earnings were - she could have been on minimun wage.

Oldernotwiser

I do appreciate what you're saying about these large divorce payments in wealthy marriages, although I never agree with these rulings. I also take the point that she wouldn't necessarily be able to build up a particularly spectacular pension in the time available to her.

However, even if she's on minimum wage, which in an expensive part of the south east I very much doubt, this would give her an income of well over £20,000 with which to effectively keep one person(the dependent children being pretty well supported by their father). With 25 years of pension contributions there would be no reason why she should not be able to build some sort of pension fund for herself and enter retirement with an expensive house fully paid for. I'm sure that it's not the type of lifestyle she enjoyed when married, but that's not the same thing as the OP's comments about "scrimping and saving" imply.

I also assume that the maintenance was fair (if very generous as many of us think) as it was awarded through the courts. If you're arguing that the courts are fair to the Mrs Chapmans of this world then presumably they're fair in this case as well. You can't have it both ways!

Katie~baby

savagevixen wrote: »

unbeleivable and unhelpful and really a bit rude

And your post was more helpful how?

I totally agree that it goes on each curcumstance. If that was the agreed arangement then who are we to argue. The issue is it has been agreed by both parties that this is what would be provided and now the mother is receiving less than what was agreed.

Speaking to your dad may be the best thing first espcially as they seem to get on well still, you dont want to cause massive rows over £50 a month.

Frugal_Fox

Okay - please forgive me for not replying... Its half term and we'd taken the children away.

I am back - but catching up on mountains of washing! I will reply in full to some of the comments here later.

However, I would like to clarify some comments. £1000 a month is a lot, I'm not arguing that. Its not much less than I have to live on each month and I'm married with two children. I do think it is spousal maintenance which is payable until mum remarried. She has no plans to do this.

Dad earns a considerable income over £100,000 annually. Since the divorce he has also inherited over £500,000 from 3 relatives. This thread isn't about 'fleecing' him for all we can get. Quite frankly the way he treats (and treated) our mother has sickened us daughters. My dad worked hard to earn his income and he is entitled to it. We didn't lead an extravagent life as children - we didn't go abroad on holiday, we had an annual self catering holiday once a year in either Feb or Oct half term. We didn't do horseriding, or other expensive hobbys. We worn hand me down clothes etc. We weren't hard done by, and don't think I'm claiming that we were.

When mum and dad first married dad was not on such a good wage. Mum had been married before and used the money from selling her home to buy a home together with my dad. When they first married mum worked. Dad asked her to stop work to run the house.

My original question related to whether he could just cut the maintenance that had been agreed for my mum, and if he could how much notice could he give. Arguing over whether mum is entitled to this money, or the amount is irrelevant. Its unhelpful. Money does not buy happiness.

DH has worded a polite friendly letter to dad reminding him the original agreement was for £1000 for mum.

Dad can be really thoughtful, only not where money is concerned!

Thank you to those who have made the helpful comments. Sorry - this turned out longer than I had wanted... I do believe the laundry is shouting at me now!

Oldernotwiser

FF, sorry we went off topic on your thread but it was quite interesting to see the different ways people look at things. I do think that your dad's been pretty mean by changing things at such short notice and without any consultation. I'm sure your mum's happier without him, regardless of her financial situation.
Enjoy your laundry; it's a wonderful drying day!

loftus

Sorry for taking the discussion off in a tangent FF - although it was an interesting and amicable debate. Best wishes to your mother.
I do just want to clarify what I was saying as I think it has been misunderstood. I don't think being on £1000 maintenance is being badly off or on the poverty line and I'm sure many people here manage on less. But we can't judge a good or bad settlement on our opinion of the figures because its not looked at like that. Thats all I was really saying. If FF's father is well off (which he apparently is) then the settlement is based on the pot available and it may have meant FF's mother getting more than some people think reasonable.
And the courts don't always make what many people regard as fair judgements - and I don't necessarily think Mrs Charmans settlement was fiar I just used it as an example. I belong to a divorce support website and some of the stories of the settlements there would make your hair curl!

Anyway - enough of this. Once again good luck to FF's mother.