Financial changes following separation

DairyQueen

A court will always prioritise the needs of your dependent children over any other factor specified in the Matrimonial Causes Act. Note the emphasis on 'your' and 'dependent'. The needs of children over 18, not in full time education (A Level or equivalent), form no part of the court's deliberations. Child support ends at age 20 regardless.

You have no obligation to pay support for foster children. The money your wife receives as a foster carer is intended for their support and not to subsidise the rest of the household. It should not be viewed as money available to the rest of the family by you, or by your wife.

You may feel a parental obligation to provide support to adult/foster children but, other than specified above, you are not legally obligated to do so.

The starting point for the division of assets is 50/50 but the parties' needs often creates an unequal division. Who paid the mortgage is immaterial in anything other than a short marriage. You have received 50% of the house equity. If your wife has residential care of your (not-fostered), dependent children, and the house is not over-sized for their needs, then you have been very fortunate to receive 50%, and to receive it now.

Marital debts would usually be split 50/50, subject to the parties' needs. It may be an idea to show your wife the paperwork that proves you made zero on the car.

It sounds like your biggest marital asset may be your pension. Foregoing child support is unlikely to match 50% of its value. All pension assets should be split 50/50 unless one party accepts alternative assets (e.g. house equity) in lieu of part/all of their entitlement. Both you and your wife should request Cash Equivalent Transfer Values for all of your pensions asap.

You may have a case to offset 50% of any marital debts that you paid post-separation against the value of the pension (assuming that there are no other assets against which to offset). However, that debt is likely to be small relative to pension value.

Courts do not award taxpayer-funded benefits (your wife's entire non-foster income) in spousal support to working spouses.

Many divorcing couples are in your position. The court would aim to leave both parties in a similar financial position, and with similar lifestyles, if there were sufficient assets. However, this is often not the case, and equality of outcome is a lower priority than meeting the needs of the children. The court will consider a 1-bed property as adequate for your needs.

I think you have been badly advised. If you have been misinformed by a legal advisor (which I doubt) then find another lawyer. The nonsense about claiming spousal support, and depriving your wife of her share of your pensions, sounds like you have spent too much time discussing with well-intentioned family/friends.

See a solicitor for general advice but try to reach a settlement without the intervention of lawyers/courts. It will be very costly for you to legally pursue unrealistic outcomes, not least in the damage to your relationship with your children.

Don't write off the possibility of obtaining a mortgage. Mortgage terms are very flexible and it's possible to hold a mortgage long into retirement. Take things one step at a time.

Good luck.

SoulPuppet

nicechap wrote: »

Interesting username, just two letters out.

Please explain.

SoulPuppet

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

How did your wife remortgage in her sole name? I thought it was a requirement that the names on the mortgage had to match those on the land registry documents

She dealt directly with a mortgage advisor. To be honest I hadn't thought to check with the Land Registry, so I should at least confirm with them that my name is no longer on the deeds.

SoulPuppet

-taff wrote: »

Do you have a solicitor representing you in your divorce? As you've been advised, why don't you try mediation and see what happens next?

No solicitor as yet. My wife's suggestion was to wait until we had lived apart for two years and then deal with it. I've not really thought to look into anything further until recently, because it was (and still is) very upsetting. I have started to come out the other side though and that's why I'm trying to find out where I stand.

[Deleted User]

And the message is never get married.


Whilst I don't think you are entitled to anything extra I can fully see how you feel aggrieved.


You started off in a family home expecting to be mortgage free in a few years and due to the divorce are now languishing in a rented one bed flat with a chance your pension could be divided.


This is certainly not peoples aspirations of how they hope to end their time after years of working life. I also assume you are of an age where making up your capital is reduced.


I don't know what the answer is but it sure makes me wary of Marriage.

DairyQueen

BBH123 wrote: »

And the message is never get married.


Whilst I don't think you are entitled to anything extra I can fully see how you feel aggrieved.


You started off in a family home expecting to be mortgage free in a few years and due to the divorce are now languishing in a rented one bed flat with a chance your pension could be divided.


This is certainly not peoples aspirations of how they hope to end their time after years of working life. I also assume you are of an age where making up your capital is reduced.


I don't know what the answer is but it sure makes me wary of Marriage.

Marriage isn't the issue, it's the lifestyle choices made as a couple that can spell disaster.

Giving up work to care for children can be a risky business for both the worker and the dependent caregiver.

Children are the big differentiator. Once you have them then their needs will take priority for decades, even to the point of post-divorce destitution.

I have a close relative who was, literally, made destitute on divorce. The ex got the house and their two young children, he got the debts and the mortgage. She lived off welfare whilst he worked his socks off and paid child support. He couldn't afford to put a roof over his head but he was lucky - his family stepped-in and housed him. Many are not so fortunate.

He did manage to keep 100% of his pension though.

OP is extremely lucky to have 50% of the house equity. If this went before a judge I doubt that he would have been able to realise any equity until his youngest dependent child was no longer entitled to child support.