What's a fair divorce settlement when there's no children?

PennyPurple

Interested in people's opinion of what's a "fair" financial settlement for a mid forties couple after a decent length marriage (10 years) when there are no children, but the financial positions of the couple are very different. One has savings / investments / pensions / a mortgage free house, the other earns just enough to support themselves with rent (small flat) / bills etc but no luxuries. When married, all finances were kept separate with the lower earner paying a small contribution to outgoings (not mortgage) and everything else was paid for by the higher earner, with the understanding that each owned their own money. 

I appreciate views will vary and be influenced by beliefs as to how couples "should" manage their finances, as well as any personal experience of divorce. Just interested to know what most people think is fair. 

MovingForwards

My marriage was slightly shorter, but it was a long-term relationship before that.

Upon speaking with a solicitor I was advised 50% of everything, except his pension as that was pre-marriage / relationship.

I walked away and left him with everything as I couldn't be bothered to squabble, was a lot younger so could pay old debts off, save and get a mortgage.

pphillips

If the lower earner consented to the couple keeping their finances separate and seeks a settlement on this basis, it will not necessary follow that the settlement is a fair one. Fairness requires that the wealthier spouse compensates the spouse that suffered a financial disadvantage arising from the way in which the couple conducted their marriage. The purpose of a settlement is not to decide who owns what but rather to decide how those assets should be shared.

Fireflyaway

I suppose it depends whether you get on ok and can come to a joint agreement or whether solicitors will decide because your opinion / morals etc might well be different to what the law says. 
I'm separated from my husband also after 10 years of marriage and 7 years together before that. He is a much higher earner than me. Personally if we divorce ( which I hope we dont) I wouldn't ask for anything from him and I know he wouldn't expect anything from me ( we don't own a house). In your circumstance I personally don't see why either should be entitled to anything from the other. You had separate finances and the lower earner didn't contribute to the mortgage . Just because one partner has more I don't morally see why the other has a claim on it unless they contributed to it. 

sweetsand

Hi
10 years as equals in my eyes as it's a partnership for better and worse, richer or poorer. You are both young and as another said, forget the pension but if you are luck many people stay married for about 40 years untill most dies etc.  Therefore 10 yrs is 25% of that - give her 25% of your net wealth but not inc the pension and up to 5 to 10% as good will unless the OH cheated on you. If you cheated on the OH, give her 50% not inc the pension, I hope this helps.

tacpot12

As you have kept your finances quite separate, you are in a much better position than most to know whose money belongs to whom. As this is the case, I would suggest that some sweetsand's proposal is sound EXCEPT that sweetsand's methodology is to give one party a proportion of what they would eventually receive if they remained married. While I can see the logic of this, it disregards the fact that the better off party still needs their money to live and may want to have other relationships. If you follow sweetsand's methodology to its logical conclusion, someone getting divorced after 39 years would need to give their ex 97.5% of their assets. This would never be awarded by a court. 

I think sweetsand's proposal needs to be amended so that if A has £a in assets and B has £b in assets, B should be given HALF of 25-35% of the difference between £a and £b (assuming A has the larger amount of assets). So 12.5% to 17% of difference between the parties assets. 

I'm not sure why sweetsand is excluding the pension, but in this particular case, you have both had the opportunity to build up your own pensions so if I were the better off party I would be somewhat miffed. However, the law does regard pension assets as marital assets, so some pension sharing should be discussed. You might chose to agree a lesser figure for dividing up the pension assets. (e.g. HALF of 10% of the difference between the pension pots), and you might take more cash in exchange for any pension assets you are entitled to. However, if you do, I would urge you to invest this cash into your own pension savings. Don't use it to clear debts (providing that these are under control) or spend it. You will need it for your retirement, so put it where you can't get at it until you retire.    

swingaloo

sweetsand said:

Hi
10 years as equals in my eyes as it's a partnership for better and worse, richer or poorer. You are both young and as another said, forget the pension but if you are luck many people stay married for about 40 years untill most dies etc.  Therefore 10 yrs is 25% of that - give her 25% of your net wealth but not inc the pension and up to 5 to 10% as good will unless the OH cheated on you. If you cheated on the OH, give her 50% not inc the pension, I hope this helps.

What a strange way to look at it, that's a rather odd reply.  By the way how do you know they are both young? 

RobM99

swingaloo said:

sweetsand said:

Hi
10 years as equals in my eyes as it's a partnership for better and worse, richer or poorer. You are both young and as another said, forget the pension but if you are luck many people stay married for about 40 years untill most dies etc.  Therefore 10 yrs is 25% of that - give her 25% of your net wealth but not inc the pension and up to 5 to 10% as good will unless the OH cheated on you. If you cheated on the OH, give her 50% not inc the pension, I hope this helps.

What a strange way to look at it, that's a rather odd reply.  By the way how do you know they are both young? 

I'm just guessing but the first sentence in the original post might provide a clue.

swingaloo

RobM99 said:

swingaloo said:

sweetsand said:

Hi
10 years as equals in my eyes as it's a partnership for better and worse, richer or poorer. You are both young and as another said, forget the pension but if you are luck many people stay married for about 40 years untill most dies etc.  Therefore 10 yrs is 25% of that - give her 25% of your net wealth but not inc the pension and up to 5 to 10% as good will unless the OH cheated on you. If you cheated on the OH, give her 50% not inc the pension, I hope this helps.

What a strange way to look at it, that's a rather odd reply.  By the way how do you know they are both young? 

I'm just guessing but the first sentence in the original post might provide a clue.

RobM99 said:

swingaloo said:

sweetsand said:

Hi
10 years as equals in my eyes as it's a partnership for better and worse, richer or poorer. You are both young and as another said, forget the pension but if you are luck many people stay married for about 40 years untill most dies etc.  Therefore 10 yrs is 25% of that - give her 25% of your net wealth but not inc the pension and up to 5 to 10% as good will unless the OH cheated on you. If you cheated on the OH, give her 50% not inc the pension, I hope this helps.

What a strange way to look at it, that's a rather odd reply.  By the way how do you know they are both young? 

I'm just guessing but the first sentence in the original post might provide a clue.

Ha, ha, I missed that. Good to now mid forties is still considered young though.

Mickey666

I would say that 'fair' would be based on what each person contributed to the marriage, which as far as finance is concerned would be based on their respective incomes. 

So, first off, ignore anything each partner had before the marriage.  Then, calculate the split of all assets acquired during the marriage based on income.  So, if each person earned the same amount split the marriage assets 50:50.  if the salary split was, say 60:40 then that's what the assets split should be.  In that way, each person would walk away in basically the same financial position as if they had not married.  I say 'financial position' because obviously there are a whole raft of other more personal issues, but financially that would seem a fair starting point to me.

silvercar

I would say that 'fair' would be based on what each person contributed to the marriage, which as far as finance is concerned would be based on their respective incomes. 

It is very hard to judge. Maybe the couple made the decision that one would work a less demanding job to support the other and/or keep the home running smoothly or offer support to the main income earner in other ways.

If the marriage hadn't taken place, maybe the lower earner would be in a very different financial situation now and the settlement should reflect that.