Advice on division of assets in divorce

mattpaint

The wife needs to understand that she won't have a claim on his inheritance after they've split - but he does have a claim on hers.

She doesn't get to punish him with the divorce and I suggest those who want her to should butt out.

Tigsteroonie

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

He says he won't go to court and wants to come to a mutual arrangement as he thinks the costs will be expensive and they can reach an amicable solution.

With assets of that size, they will require a court-approved Consent Order, even if they agree the contents through mediation before hand. So a judge will still get to see the agreement and may enquire or suggest alternative.

We always come down to the same thing, none of this was her choice.

Completely irrelevant when it comes down to the financial proceedings, I'm afraid.

theoretica

Pollycat wrote: »

But the OP (and probably his sister) seem to want to keep the 90% of the house but still want a share of his pension.

My reading was that he has offered to take only 10% of the house (a known value) and all his pension (an unknown value). How can the OP's sister decide if that is generous, fair or selfish without knowing what everything is worth?

enthusiasticsaver

theoretica wrote: »

My reading was that he has offered to take only 10% of the house (a known value) and all his pension (an unknown value). How can the OP's sister decide if that is generous, fair or selfish without knowing what everything is worth?

Exactly my point. Thank you. It may be generous but without a CETV how can she know? Incidentally I have also said he may have a claim on hers although hers is very small. He has said many times in the past he has an excellent pension. He won't talk about it now. That concerns me now.

He has only offered to take 10% because he knows she can access that from her inheritance and that will mean he can move on now rather than as he originally said when the adult children leave home. That could be five years from now.

enthusiasticsaver

mattpaint wrote: »

The wife needs to understand that she won't have a claim on his inheritance after they've split - but he does have a claim on hers.

She doesn't get to punish him with the divorce and I suggest those who want her to should butt out.

She is not claiming any of his inheritance should he receive one. They have both come to an amicable arrangement regarding these. There is no question of punishment but I understandably would like my sister to have a fair deal. That means knowing what the pension is worth before agreeing to a settlement.

You sound angry but they are dealing with this in a civilised way.

The only thing I have said to her is

1 she needs legal advice
2 she needs the CETV of both hers and his pension before agreeing to anything
3 she needs to know all her options and she should have his suggestion evaluated. His proposal re the property is generous and she has acknowledged that but he has not said anything about his pension.

enthusiasticsaver

Spendless wrote: »

With all due respect, isn't 'waiting until the adult children have left home' a little 'woolly'? It could be many years or even decades before they decide to leave. I have a friend who still lives with her Mum and she's 53!

The reason she 'has to' is because they are divorcing, not her choice I understand, but this seems to be a sticking point from the way I've read it.

Originally when they separated my brother in law said he would not force her to sell until my niece and nephew left the home. At the time my nephew was 23 and working in London so lived at home as rents are so expensive. My niece finishes Uni this year but will be moving back home to do a masters in London. Yes it was an indeterminate time and I think he has realised this now.

As I understand it he can only force her to sell by going to Court which he has said he will not do because it is expensive and he thinks they can reach an agreement. It may not be a sticking point as it is a very early stage in negotiations at the moment. He has put forward one suggestion. My advice to her is to get legal advise and proper evaluation of pensions as well as the house. Their savings are separate and he has agreed she can keep hers and she has said he can keep his. This is not antagonistic at all but there may be other ways that can be fair to both of them and I think she should hear those too.

enthusiasticsaver

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

With assets of that size, they will require a court-approved Consent Order, even if they agree the contents through mediation before hand. So a judge will still get to see the agreement and may enquire or suggest alternative.



Completely irrelevant when it comes down to the financial proceedings, I'm afraid.

Useful to know. My brother in law seems to have researched all this so I guess he knows that.

Tom99

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

Useful to know. My brother in law seems to have researched all this so I guess he knows that.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I think all financial consent orders have to be granted by the court. That does not mean a solicitor needs to be involved.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Also each's savings should go into the pot before any share-out is agreed, same as the capital pension values.[/FONT]

enthusiasticsaver

Tom99 wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I think all financial consent orders have to be granted by the court. That does not mean a solicitor needs to be involved.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Also each's savings should go into the pot before any share-out is agreed, same as the capital pension values.[/FONT]

So presumably on this financial consent order all assets need to be disclosed? My brother in law works for HMRC and has told my sister they can just fill out the online form themselves. I have been on to the gov.uk site and there appears to be one.

He wants them to agree between themselves the split.

Can the court override this even if both parties are agreed?

Sambella

The court will ask if are clear about it and understand what they are agreeing to before rubber stamping it. They generally only step in where there is no agreement.

A consent order is good to have as it stops either coming back for more in later years.