Finances when separating - advice needed please

bloolagoon

MoD wrote: »

Could you explain why you think this please?

Your FTE (full time equivilant) is higher. You are the one with the higher salary - you just work less hours. Your son is 18 so there is no need to work part time although I do understand that it's your current job.

Your argument of tax,NI and travel costs counter balancing any extra isn't relevant as your OH is experiencing it too. Same issue less hourly rate.

I know you are hurting and I do understand how devastated you must feel and betrayed but I don't think in all honesty you can argue unequal wages as a reason for more equity. If you were on NMW and he was on £50,000 plus, both earning the same before a family then yes, but not how you describe. Just my opinion though and I don't have any full certainty, just looking at it from an outsider view point.

19lottie82

bloolagoon wrote: »

Your FTE (full time equivilant) is higher. You are the one with the higher salary - you just work less hours. Your son is 18 so there is no need to work part time although I do understand that it's your current job.

Your argument of tax,NI and travel costs counter balancing any extra isn't relevant as your OH is experiencing it too. Same issue less hourly rate.

I know you are hurting and I do understand how devastated you must feel and betrayed but I don't think in all honesty you can argue unequal wages as a reason for more equity. If you were on NMW and he was on £50,000 plus, both earning the same before a family then yes, but not how you describe. Just my opinion though and I don't have any full certainty, just looking at it from an outsider view point.

Exactly this. I'm sorry OP, I wasn't meaning to have a go at you, I'm just trying to be realistic here.

In your situation I have a feeling your friends / family whoa re on "your side" might be filling your head with ideas of how you are entitled to more for the reasons that you've mentioned, but I can't see it tbh. I may be wrong but I can't see a judge awarding more than a 50/50 split. If it gets to that stage thought, I hope it won't and that you and your ex can work it out amicably. Good luck.

MoD

bloolagoon wrote: »

Your FTE (full time equivilant) is higher. You are the one with the higher salary - you just work less hours. Your son is 18 so there is no need to work part time although I do understand that it's your current job.

Your argument of tax,NI and travel costs counter balancing any extra isn't relevant as your OH is experiencing it too. Same issue less hourly rate.

I know you are hurting and I do understand how devastated you must feel and betrayed but I don't think in all honesty you can argue unequal wages as a reason for more equity. If you were on NMW and he was on £50,000 plus, both earning the same before a family then yes, but not how you describe. Just my opinion though and I don't have any full certainty, just looking at it from an outsider view point.

I see where you're coming from, in theory, but not sure how that works in practice.
I work 32 hours a week, but am only paid for 45 weeks a year.
There is no prospect of working more hours in this job.
I earn approx £8.25 an hour, only because I have been in my job almost 13 years. This is less than £1 an hour more than H's basic (his overtime is x1.5 his usual rate) and even if I could work full time I still wouldn't earn, in a year, what H does.
I have been looking at full-time jobs but am not qualified to do anything other than minimum wage jobs. I have used the online calculators which show I would bring home £37 a month more than I do now, but travel would cost me £120 a month.
H works 10 mins from home.

MoD

19lottie82 wrote: »

Exactly this. I'm sorry OP, I wasn't meaning to have a go at you, I'm just trying to be realistic here.

In your situation I have a feeling your friends / family whoa re on "your side" might be filling your head with ideas of how you are entitled to more for the reasons that you've mentioned, but I can't see it tbh. I may be wrong but I can't see a judge awarding more than a 50/50 split. If it gets to that stage thought, I hope it won't and that you and your ex can work it out amicably. Good luck.

Friends/family have no idea of his intentions. I have no-one on "my side" and no-one I can talk to atm.

When I met H I owned my own flat, and earned more 20 years ago than he does now. He came with debts and was out of work more than in it for the first 6 years.
I gave everything up to be the 'traditional' wife/mother we both wanted for our family. More fool me.
A 50/50 split would leave neither of us with a home and not enough to even buy a 1 bed flat each.

19lottie82

MoD wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, in theory, but not sure how that works in practice.
I work 32 hours a week, but am only paid for 45 weeks a year.
There is no prospect of working more hours.
I earn approx £8.25 an hour, only because I have been in my job almost 13 years. This is less than £1 an hour more than H's basic (his overtime is x1.5 his usual rate) and even if I could work full time I still wouldn't earn, in a year, what H does.
I have been looking at full-time jobs but am not qualified to do anything other than minimum wage jobs. I have used the online calculators which show I would bring home £37 a month more than I do now, but travel would cost me £120 a month.
H works 10 mins from home.

OP, I understand where you're coming from but tbh the difference isn't so great that it would warrant more than a 50/50 split IMO. Surely it would be better to have a 50/50 split of the house, where you kept your savings, (as an example) that take this to court, as I don't think either of you can afford a lawyer here?

Can I ask what line of work you're in? Are you sure all the alternatives with FT hours are all NMW? You might be surprised?

19lottie82

MoD wrote: »

A 50/50 split would leave neither of us with a home and not enough to even buy a 1 bed flat each.

That's not really a reason for one person to get more than the other though, especially as you don't have any dependent children, on paper.

Would a 1 bed flat not be an option, with a short mortgage, based on your current income?

Again, I'm not meaning to have a go at you here OP, just trying to be realistic. If this goes to court, all that will happen is lawyers will drag it, for every argument your lawyer will have as to why you should get more, his will have a counter argument, then you'll both end up with even LESS after paying legal bills.

MoD

19lottie82 wrote: »

OP, I understand where you're coming from but tbh the difference isn't so great that it would warrant more than a 50/50 split IMO. Surely it would be better to have a 50/50 split of the house, where you kept your savings, (as an example) that take this to court, as I don't think either of you can afford a lawyer here?

Can I ask what line of work you're in? Are you sure all the alternatives with FT hours are all NMW? You might be surprised?

A 50/50 split would mean selling my home (which is a horror I cannot even contemplate) and would leave neither of us with a enough to even buy a 1 bed flat each even with a 20 year mortgage. (Our current home is a modest semi in a rural area, there are few flats here and flats in town are not much cheaper than the value of our current home)

I find it hard to believe after nearly 25 years that I could end up in a significantly worse position than I was before my marriage, while H would end up significantly better off.

I am hoping that we can come to an agreement between ourselves and avoid lawyers/court/legal bills as much as possible, but can't afford to not fight my corner.

I work in a school.

19lottie82

MoD wrote: »

I find it hard to believe after nearly 25 years that I could end up in a worse position than I was before my marriage, while H would end up significantly better off.

Sadly, this is the likely case. When you get married, and stay married for 25 years, everything is joint, it doesn't revert back to what you had before you legally joined together as partners.

Again, combined with the equity of a 50/50 split, and your savings, would a 1 bed not be an option with a mortgage from your salary?

I know this really doesn't seem fair, especially as your husband is the one who wants to end things, but it's a fact of life that when a couple split, lifestyles must be adjusted accordingly, the total salaries now have to provide for 2 homes, instead of 1.

What has your husband suggested so far, in terms of a split?

MoD wrote: »

I am hoping that we can come to an agreement between ourselves and avoid lawyers/court/legal bills as much as possible, but can't afford to not fight my corner.

This is understandable 100%, but there is a huge difference in "fighting your corner" and being realistic.

MoD

19lottie82 wrote: »

Again, combined with the equity of a 50/50 split, and your savings, would a 1 bed not be an option with a mortgage from your salary?

No, not even close.
If I could find the shortfall needed (which I can't) I would be able to afford to buy him out.

19lottie82

Sadly this is a common problem when long term couples with no dependants go their separate ways. It does seem horribly unfair as it is your husbands choice to leave. I hope you manage to find a solution OP.