Divorce/Financial Settlement - no children

stalky7691

I’m just about to start Meditation with my estranged wife - where she believes she is entitled to at least 50% of my cash and assets - so I’m looking for details of anyone else’s personal experience to see if this is a correct assumption, and if not, to find out what is a realistic percentage split, in this type of situation. 

As a bit of background, we have no children, we were together for a total of 11 years, but only married for the last 5.

I’m not sure if this is relevant - though I feel it is - when we first met, and before we were married (first 6 years) my wife had no disposable income and huge personal debts, so she lived with me in rented properties and then my own flat (which I purchased), where she contributed very little towards rent, mortgage or bills. 

After a few years of being together I purchased a house in my own name (before we were married) - which I now continue to live in.

I then helped her pay off her personal debts with my own money, so by the time we were married she was completely debt free.

For the first 4 years of our marriage she decided to take a university degree, so once again she personally couldn’t contribute anything towards the mortgage or household.

Once she was qualified, and got herself a good job, and after a further year together - where I managed to pay my mortgage off in full - she walked out and left me.

As previously stated, we have agreed to start mediation soon, and she believes she is “entitled” to at least 50% of my cash and assets etc. which personally feels very unfair, especially as her assets amount to virtually nothing!

Details of anyone’s personal experience (ie. final percentage split?) in a similar situation would be  very much appreciated.

Thanks.

tacpot12

The starting point for a discussion on splitting assets is 50/50, but this assumes that both parties have contributed equally to the marriage. Your estranged wife would have contributed via her good job if she had remained married to you, but as she wants to split, it seems to me that she is less entitled to a 50/50 split. Her lack of debts and her degree are the assets that she will leave the marriage with, these have a value and I would argue that by not working not only did she not contribute to the mortgage, but she did not start building up a pension provision which means that you have to fund this element for her as well. 

I think you will be very lucky to get a split as unequal as 60/40, but this might be achievable if you have evidence of the scale of the personal debts you cleared for her, I would definitely take any such evidence into the mediation.  

It will help you to take a budget or illustration that shows the degree to which you supported your wife through the years of your marriage showing your income and her income and your outgoings (divided into day-to-day living expenses, mortgage payments and payments to clear her debts). 

The point of mediation isn't to beat up your ex, or to convince the mediator that your are right and she is wrong, rather it is to assess all the facts together to try to agree what would be fair to both parties. This will need you to listen to her point of view, while also being clear about your own views. You are likely to get a better deal if you can agree it at mediation, and your ex will react better if you are able to present your case without too much emotion. If she feels that you are trying to get back at her she may dig her heels in and refuse to agree to any settlement other than 50/50.

FYI My own divorce was settled 50/50 despite us having being married for just two years and me having put all the deposit own on our home, but we had two children. 

pphillips

I agree that she would be entitled to less than 50% of the marital assets on the basis of her contribution to the marriage and because it was a short and childless marriage. I suggest that you get legal advice on what would be a fair settlement as you'll need to instruct a solicitor for the consent order anyway.

AskAsk

here is a link that discuss the split
https://www.portner.co.uk/news/divorce-myth-busting-the-couple-s-assets-are-always-divided-50-50

it is more difficult for the wife to claim assets if there are no children in the marriage as providing for the children will always be the first priority for the court.  assets that are split are those that are accumulated during the marriage, so any assets that you had owned before you were married may be excluded.  as you had bought your house before you were married, she may not be able to claim a share of that if she never contributed towards its payment.

as others have said, you will need to instruct a solicitor.  but it is unlikely she will end up with 50% share in this case.

DairyQueen

pphillips said:

I agree that she would be entitled to less than 50% of the marital assets on the basis of her contribution to the marriage and because it was a short and childless marriage. I suggest that you get legal advice on what would be a fair settlement as you'll need to instruct a solicitor for the consent order anyway.

OP states that they were together for 6 years prior to marriage. If the pre-marriage period included seamless cohabitation then courts consider the period of cohabitation inclusive when assessing 'the duration of the marriage'. Also, the definition of 'short' is subjective. Often cohabitation+marriage < 5 years is considered 'short' but if that equation sums to a decade or more it is unlikely to be defined as a 'short marriage' and OP will be fortunate to avoid a 50/50 split.

The duration of the marriage is one of several factors the court will weigh. Children will be top of the list but, if childless, the age of the parties, earning capacity and 'need' will be important. For example, each party will require housing as a priority and unequal splits may occur in order to achieve an equal standard of housing for each of the parties.

pphillips

DairyQueen said:

pphillips said:

I agree that she would be entitled to less than 50% of the marital assets on the basis of her contribution to the marriage and because it was a short and childless marriage. I suggest that you get legal advice on what would be a fair settlement as you'll need to instruct a solicitor for the consent order anyway.

OP states that they were together for 6 years prior to marriage. If the pre-marriage period included seamless cohabitation then courts consider the period of cohabitation inclusive when assessing 'the duration of the marriage'. Also, the definition of 'short' is subjective. Often cohabitation+marriage < 5 years is considered 'short' but if that equation sums to a decade or more it is unlikely to be defined as a 'short marriage' and OP will be fortunate to avoid a 50/50 split.

The duration of the marriage is one of several factors the court will weigh. Children will be top of the list but, if childless, the age of the parties, earning capacity and 'need' will be important. For example, each party will require housing as a priority and unequal splits may occur in order to achieve an equal standard of housing for each of the parties.

You've interpreted together as cohabitation and that fine, but I wasn't prepared to make that assumption.

Mojisola

stalky7691 said:

As a bit of background, we have no children, we were together for a total of 11 years, but only married for the last 5.
when we first met, and before we were married (first 6 years) my wife had no disposable income and huge personal debts, so she lived with me in rented properties and then my own flat (which I purchased)

pphillips said:

You've interpreted together as cohabitation and that fine, but I wasn't prepared to make that assumption.

I read this that they had lived together for 11 years.

stalky7691

Thanks for the input everyone!
Does anyone else have personal experience of a similar situation??
Thanks!