splitting money asset after divorce

meer53

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?

Sounds as though she has had advice from a solicitor, you should do the same.

Astraeus

justme111 wrote: »

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

How do you arrive at it being "extremely unlikely" that he will get more and "very likely" he will get less? What facts are you privy to which no-one else in this thread is?

I have a real bugbear with those holding themselves out to be something they are not and your advice is poor, devoid of factual or legal basis and ignorant.

As to 'what kind of a man' would pursue this matter, possibly one who required a greater share of capital in order to raise a mortgage to buy a house capable of accommodating the children when they spend time with him in circumstances where the wife has a greater mortgage capacity and thus can more easily rehouse? This is precisely my issue with your one-size-fits-all approach, it takes no account of particular circumstances.

We will see how far we can stretch assumptions.

justme111

Astraeus wrote: »

How do you arrive at it being "extremely unlikely" that he will get more and "very likely" he will get less? What facts are you privy to which no-one else in this thread is?

I have a real bugbear with those holding themselves out to be something they are not and your advice is poor, devoid of factual or legal basis and ignorant.

As to 'what kind of a man' would pursue this matter, possibly one who required a greater share of capital in order to raise a mortgage to buy a house capable of accommodating the children when they spend time with him in circumstances where the wife has a greater mortgage capacity and thus can more easily rehouse? This is precisely my issue with your one-size-fits-all approach, it takes no account of particular circumstances.

We will see how far we can stretch assumptions.

Don't forget , you are not at work now . If I was a lawyer sat in the office I would not have given expert advice on the limited information provided . He asked for advice on internet forum and that's what he gets . Why do I think it is very unlikely - because I seen probably a dozen cases where division was around 70/80 to 20/30 , only one where a division was 60/40 and none where it would be more towards nrp. Of course in the op's case she may be a daughter of abramovich and earns 4 times his salary with 3 kids but what are the chances of it ? If we were all like you all threads would consist of the only possible reply "go and see specialist".

Astraeus

justme111 wrote: »

Don't forget , you are not at work now . If I was a lawyer sat in the office I would not have given expert advice on the limited information provided . He asked for advice on internet forum and that's what he gets . Why do I think it is very unlikely - because I seen probably a dozen cases where division was around 70/80 to 20/30 , only one where a division was 60/40 and none where it would be more towards nrp. Of course in the op's case she may be a daughter of abramovich and earns 4 times his salary with 3 kids but what are the chances of it ? If we were all like you all threads would consist of the only possible reply "go and see specialist".

...which would be safe advice to give. I'll leave you to your dangerous game of delusions and assumptions.

oppressed1

Astraeus wrote: »

...which would be safe advice to give. I'll leave you to your dangerous game of delusions and assumptions.

I'm sorry but the delusions are very much on your side, I've now got a son who refuses to call me daddy any more and sends abusive emails, all because he's been allowed to read the multitude of groundless accusations that come out of these theatrical financial disputes, 3 years ago when my ex wife and I went to see a solicitor, how nice if we could have come out with nice clear advice like Justme111 suggested. We were thinking 60 40, my wife saw another solicitor after, who said you could get more, and now I've lost my relationship with all 3 of my sons, spent most of last year worrying about the next financial meeting, and my wife got an extra 3% out of it, 6k, so really not worth it, In fact the only people who gained were the solicitors cost between us of 8k.
This destruction of character is a norm In these precedings and you appear to have not mentioned this in your posts.

justme111

Astraeus wrote: »

...which would be safe advice to give. I'll leave you to your dangerous game of delusions and assumptions.

"I will leave you"... "delusions and assumptions" - what a language , you said you were a lawyer - you sure you don't suffer from any Napoleonic complexes ?