splitting money asset after divorce

paul_b1

Hi,
I have a simple question. Although there are probably lots of issues to consider. I am currently divorced and have 3 children. All the children with will be living with my ex wife and will be paying for there support. We have just sold the joint property but cant agree on the split of the money from the assets. She is saying that we need to split the money 60/40 for her to support the children. This seems excessive. Can someone please advise?

thorsoak

If the children are living with your ex-wife, then she will require a property that is large enough for her and the children, so it would appear to be a fair split.

BitterAndTwisted

Ten percent of a couple of million pounds is a considerable sum. Ten percent of a hundred grand, less so.

How much is this ten percent going to contribute towards providing for a decent home for your children?

The bald truth is that separation invariably leaves both partners substantially worse-off than they were when together. But that's not your kids' faults.

You're fortunate that a court hasn't found that the property should not be sold until your youngest is no longer a dependent.

Ozzuk

There are too many factors unknown to us, it could be fair, it could be horribly unfair. Only you can decide what you feel is fair. It sounds fair if your wife is taking the responsibility for the children, in fact you may be getting off lightly!

So without all the facts I'd say accept it, life is too short and do you really want the hassle, stress and costs of arguing over 10%.

Mojisola

paul_b1 wrote: »

I am currently divorced and have 3 children. All the children with will be living with my ex wife and will be paying for there support.

We have just sold the joint property but cant agree on the split of the money from the assets. She is saying that we need to split the money 60/40 for her to support the children. This seems excessive.

If she had decided to stay in the property, the courts would have given her residence at least until the youngest child was 18 so you're already doing much better than most non-resident fathers.

Didn't all this get discussed during the divorce process?

oppressed1

paul_b1 wrote: »

Hi,
I have a simple question. Although there are probably lots of issues to consider. I am currently divorced and have 3 children. All the children with will be living with my ex wife and will be paying for there support. We have just sold the joint property but cant agree on the split of the money from the assets. She is saying that we need to split the money 60/40 for her to support the children. This seems excessive. Can someone please advise?

Hi the Judge will want to see your wife in a new home with the children, and that home will need to be 4 bedrooms and near (within 5 miles) of the school, if you push this to court you wil, end up spending a lot more, on law fees and settlement, to have got the assets out, your lucky and should take this deal before she sees a decent Lawer.
Thanks

Astraeus

There is some incomplete advice in the above posts.

Factors which will be taken into account will include, inter alia, the length of the marriage, the ages of the children, the net proceeds of sale, both yours and your ex-wife's mortgage capacities and the level of property in which you will find yourself post-separation.

BitterAndTwisted referred you to the most relevant consideration - what is the sum we are talking about? If retaining 60% from the proceeds of sale is what your ex-wife needs to rehouse somewhere suitable she has an arguable case to retain an unequal division. If her needs are met by an equal split and this is a long marriage, she would struggle to justify a departure from equality.

My advice, as a matrimonial lawyer, is to seek legal advice. You should not feel pressured into giving up any part of the proceeds of sale and you certainly ought not be swayed by comments akin to that made by Ozzuk above - do you really want the stress and costs of arguing over 10%? My answer would be yes if you stood to gain from doing so.

justme111

Grab the offer with both hands and thank your lucky star. I disagree with the bove poster , even if you stand to win those 10% it is not worth it due to solicitors fees involved and animosity that will affect all your life , I can not believe someone asks that question , must be a wind up post.

mgdavid

no-ones mentioned that all other assets need to be split too, not just the proceeds from the property. Go to court and half your pension will be claimed too. It's also easy to spend £10k to £20k on a solicitor so an amicable split is far better, depending on how much the 10% at stake actually amounts to of course.

Astraeus

justme111 wrote: »

Grab the offer with both hands and thank your lucky star. I disagree with the bove poster , even if you stand to win those 10% it is not worth it due to solicitors fees involved and animosity that will affect all your life , I can not believe someone asks that question , must be a wind up post.

This is such irresponsible 'advice'. If the 10% amounted to £40,000, your advice would be not to pursue it? I must say it is dangerous for such flippant advice to be doled out without any investigation as to the facts.

mgdavid wrote: »

no-ones mentioned that all other assets need to be split too, not just the proceeds from the property. Go to court and half your pension will be claimed too. It's also easy to spend £10k to £20k on a solicitor so an amicable split is far better, depending on how much the 10% at stake actually amounts to of course.

You are correct in terms of the pension potentially being taken into consideration. It echoes what I said to the OP in terms of needing to seek advice on the entire picture as opposed to a very discrete, narrow point of principle upon which nobody can validly opine owing to the lack of facts.

justme111

Yes my advice would still be not to pursue it. Reasons I listed already - 1- extremly unlikely he will get more and very likely he will get less.2- animosity left after pursuing will damage relationships and his emotional state severely and for long ,3- what kind of a man would try to get those 10% of mother of his 4 children when he already has 40% ,4- if 10% amounts to £40 grand than his 40% would mean he already has 160 grand which is hardly a breadline