Divorce - consent order - unequal but agreed. Formality or subject to scrutiny?

Mojisola

springdreams wrote: »

Perhaps the other woman who his planning to marry once your divorce is final is willing to let him stay at home rather than expecting him to go out an earn a living as any other able bodied man without children would be expected to do?

That's what he's done for the last few years!

springdreams

Mojisola wrote: »

That's what he's done for the last few years!

Yeah, but after putting up with it for 17 years OP seems to have been pushing him to get off his lazy backside and work. Perhaps it was too much for the poor man, so he looked elsewhere to find a woman who understood his need not to work too hard or not to work at all! :cool:

(Sarcasm intended)

I think you're being more than generous OP. How the judge will view it, however, no one can predict. Each case is decided on the merits, so all you can do it go to court and hope for the outcome you have agreed to.

McAnniee

LannieDuck wrote: »

£10k is 4% of £250k. There's no way a judge will sign off on a 96:4 split.



Even if you set aside the £35k from your dad, that leaves a pot of £215k. What's the rationale for not offering 50% of that?

Sorry I've just realised it was misleading how I wrote that!

They left with ~40k in savings and I am suggesting putting another £10k cash to that from 'my' savings.

Edited to add: it was clear in my mind but I didn't think to make it explicit because I'm already thinking that the £40k they already have is "theirs" and the money I have needs to be split !

McAnniee

LannieDuck wrote: »

Even if you set aside the £35k from your dad, that leaves a pot of £215k. What's the rationale for not offering 50% of that?

Yeah I can see I'm going to have a hard time with this.

Until about 6 years ago we were fairly equal financially with a similar amount in savings (I had maybe a bit more, as I earned considerably more but we didn't pay bills exactly in proportion to earnings, more like half and half). We rented houses and between that and the utility bills/food/etc etc it was fairly equal. Spouse was earning ~23k and me ~28k at that time.

Spouse then left their job as it had become unbearable (could have been constructive dismissal IMO but they didn't want to pursue it, and I know those cases are very hard to win anyway. And what would you get as a 'reward' - the impossible job back!!) went travelling etc.

Some months later I had got the £35k from my dad and together with other savings I already had, put a deposit for a house and took out an offset mortgage. Spouse very adamantly said they want nothing to do with the property purchase, that it would be MY house only and they didn't want any of the obligation or risks attached to it. So the mortgage went in my name only and of course the deeds. (my mistake here was I didn't get a formal document drawn up stating this. Only the one from the bank saying that the "resident adult" who wasn't named on the mortgage had no right to live in the property and no financial claim on it if I were to be repossessed etc.)

Now we have a situation for 4 years or so where I am paying the mortgage, bills, utilities food etc entirely from my income as he isn't working and doesn't want to work, so "I don't have an income so you'll need to put all those in your name". He had contributed with some DIY and housekeeping but all DIY, tradespeople etc were also paid for by myself.

As I had savings at that point I put them into an offset mortgage so the "amount owed" was decreasing faster than it would be due to not paying so much interest and paying off more capital instead. So now the value of the house minus the outstanding mortgage is [STRIKE]less [/STRIKE] more (oops!) than it might have otherwise been at that stage.

That's why in the last 4 years or so, I now 'on paper' have a lot more money than he does. Because we consciously kept separate finances from that point, all the risk and responsibility of buying a house was mine, so the capital growth was as well. And of course I have been earning in those 4 years with any surplus (after mortgage etc) put into savings, so naturally there's now more savings in my account.!

McAnniee

springdreams wrote: »

Yeah, but after putting up with it for 17 years OP seems to have been pushing him to get off his lazy backside and work. Perhaps it was too much for the poor man, so he looked elsewhere to find a woman who understood his need not to work too hard or not to work at all! :cool:

(Sarcasm intended)

I think you're being more than generous OP. How the judge will view it, however, no one can predict. Each case is decided on the merits, so all you can do it go to court and hope for the outcome you have agreed to.

Ha, the irony is that the 'new woman' is in a much worse place financially than I am and struggling with bills etc. He said he is now having to look for a job to help them out...

McAnniee

What I'm struggling with in the "fairness" situation is that yes, I had agreed to pay for everything so he didn't have to, as he didn't want to work and so on. But that was on the understanding that it would be an ongoing relationship and a "closed system" in that sense!

What is to stop anyone just giving up contributing to the family finances on the grounds that the earning spouse will "have to" pay up anyway if they split up? There's no incentive to work at all then - just to be the first to give up and make the other take all the responsibility! If courts enforce logic like that, it's a crazy system...

TBagpuss

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Separate finances doesn't mean anything when considering the split of matrimonial assets though. 50/50 is the starting point, regardless of how you've managed your daily affairs.

Future earnings will be taken into account, so the split is often weighed more in favour of the lower earning spouse, more often than not the female party. So if this is the case AND the proposed split favours the man (assuming it's a cohabiting relationship), the judge is likely to take a very dim view of the proposal - beware!

the overriding principal is that the settlement must be fair to both parties, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. One thing which is potentially a relevant circumstance is any prior agreements between the parties.

You're correct that a court does look at income and earning capacity but that's only one factor.

Also, Judges recognise that people vary a lot in how they chose to arrange their finances. We're talking about a consent order here, and the Judge doesn't get to reject it simply because it isn't the order they would have made after a hearing.

In OPs case, a court would not chose to make an order where the split is 85/15 in favour of the higher earner, but that doesn't mean that they can't approve an order in those terms if they are satisfied that that is what the parties have agreed on, having had full disclosure.

That said, his solicitor will probably advise him against it, and he may change his mind when it comes right down to it!

springdreams

McAnniee wrote: »

Ha, the irony is that the 'new woman' is in a much worse place financially than I am and struggling with bills etc. He said he is now having to look for a job to help them out...

Well I hope you manage to wash your hands of him before he has a change of heart and decides that you are the more attractive option after all! Good luck

McAnniee

Person_one wrote: »

Its interesting that the OP has been very careful to avoid revealing the genders for some reason, but posters have made varying assumptions.

I presumed the OP was female based on the username, others seem to have assumed they are male, maybe because they are the higher earner?

Yes! I deliberately didn't reveal the genders at first, but you're right I am female and the higher earner!

LannieDuck

Thank you for explaining, I appreciate you were under no obligation to. Just to say that I'm not judging your reasons - if you and your spouse have come to an amicable agreement, good on you both.

...however, I do have a suspicion that such a massively disproportionate settlement will come under some scrutiny from the courts. Your spouse's eagerness for the settlement to go through will be important.