Will a divorce be costly?

Thurlow40

This isn’t me, asking for a friend!
He owns his own house outright.
She is a council tenant.
She gives up tenancy to move in with him and they marry.
2 years of marriage later and she moves out and back into a council flat  and the marriage is over.  Several months on from moving out and he now wants to make divorce proceedings.
reason for relationship failing, she was in severe debt and had history of unpaid utility bills, council tax, rent arrears, fraudulent claims etc.  Had been on brink of eviction.
Bayliffs tracked her down at his house and revealed this unknown issue to him.  Now distrust and deceit issues etc.  

He still works but is near to retirement, has worked whole life.  

She has worked but now claims benefits due to ill health.
Does anyone have any experience as to how this is likely to turn out?  A quick call with the CAB says she could be entitled to half of everything he has.
I understand professional advice is being sought but if anyone has an experienced opinion I’d be very interested.  Thanks

tacpot12

The starting point for a financial settlement is 50/50 split of all assets (including pensions), but this can be different in the case of short marriages. After a two year marriage, I would expect that she would receive about 25% of his assets.  

There seems little point for her to argue that she should receive money though as it will just be paid over to her creditors, and any that is left will affect her rights to means-tested benefits. 

If I were him, I would be pushing for a more generous financial settlement to her in exchange for keeping all his pension. Her creditors couldn't get their hands on any pension savings that are transferred to her.
 
He really needs to avoid falling out with her. If he can get her to agree to a small cash settlement in exchange for keeping all his pension intact, this will be the best outcome. 

He needs a really good solicitor lined up, just in case she lawyers up.

Thurlow40

tacpot12 said:

The starting point for a financial settlement is 50/50 split of all assets (including pensions), but this can be different in the case of short marriages. After a two year marriage, I would expect that she would receive about 25% of his assets.  

There seems little point for her to argue that she should receive money though as it will just be paid over to her creditors, and any that is left will affect her rights to means-tested benefits. 

If I were him, I would be pushing for a more generous financial settlement to her in exchange for keeping all his pension. Her creditors couldn't get their hands on any pension savings that are transferred to her.
 
He really needs to avoid falling out with her. If he can get her to agree to a small cash settlement in exchange for keeping all his pension intact, this will be the best outcome. 

He needs a really good solicitor line up, just in case she lawyers up.

Thank you

CookieMonster

Yes,
It will cost him.
Google "Grey Divorce".
And, as above, get a very good solicitor.

sassyblue

After two years of marriage she’s not likely to get half of his house at all, and though others disagree with me on here, the solicitor I worked for would only take into account the years of marriage when it came to pensions, which was also standard for solicitors acting on the other side too.

she might get a pay off but certainly nothing major, unless he’s a multi-millionaire!

Thurlow40

sassyblue said:

After two years of marriage she’s not likely to get half of his house at all, and though others disagree with me on here, the solicitor I worked for would only take into account the years of marriage when it came to pensions, which was also standard for solicitors acting on the other side too.

she might get a pay off but certainly nothing major, unless he’s a multi-millionaire!

Thank you.  Certainly not a millionaire, just a hardworking man looking forward to his retirement  and a small/average house but we’ll have to see.  

sassyblue

Another thing…. If she moved out and he’s not (or hasn’t been) supporting her then any argument is reduced that he needs to in the future.

gizmo111

Generally speaking in a short marriage (3-5years) the court will put you back in the position you were before the marriage - applies to both parties. 

TBagpuss

She is unlikely to be entitled to half the house - it sounds as though it is short, childless marriage, so the court will be more open to them taking out what they put in.

The fact that she gave up the security of a council house to move in with him would be relevant, but if she has been able to go back into a similarly secure property will help him, as it means that her housing needs have been met and she is now in a similar position, housing wise, as she was when they got together 

Does he have any idea about what level of debt she has?  I am quite surprised she was able to get another council tenancy if she had rent arrears previously, so it sounds as though those may have been paid off.
Is she now claiming benefits? If so, offer of a lump sum that lets her clear her debts and perhaps gives her a bit to start over with might look quite attractive. 

Thurlow40

Thank you TBagpuss.  

Yes, at the moment they are both back in the positions they were in previously.  They just need the finalisation of a divorce.
She didn’t contribute to any bills whilst living with him, just the food shop as I understand it. She doesn’t seem to have financially lost out at all but yes the leaving of her original council house is significant.  

I don’t know anything about the level of debt.  The council property she has now is not in the same area as before so maybe they didn’t probe too deeply into arrears with a different council?
Yes she claims benefits but I don’t know any details.
Thank you for replying.

thorsoak

My understanding is that if a marriage is less than 5 years before divorce proceedings start, the financial position goes back to that of each person prior to the marriage.     This may no longer be the case - but check it out.