Divorce and assets split: where do I stand?

RobertF82

Given the difference in income, would it even be a possibility that a court would decide that she's the one that has to stay in the house, a house towards which she has paid 0?

I don't know what I would do if I had to leave the house, pay part of that mortgage, and even have to pay for rent. How is that fair after paying for everything for years?

comeandgo

RobertF82 said:

Given the difference in income, would it even be a possibility that a court would decide that she's the one that has to stay in the house, a house towards which she has paid 0?

I don't know what I would do if I had to leave the house, pay part of that mortgage, and even have to pay for rent. How is that fair after paying for everything for years?

Nothing is fair in a divorce, it’s done on legality and agreement.

RobertF82

But isn't the court's purpose to find a fair solution for both parties?

tacpot12

RobertF82 said:

But isn't the court's purpose to find a fair solution for both parties?

That is the court's purpose, but often in divorce, it is not possible to be completely fair. 

When I divorced, we both made a budget of what we needed to live on, and having understood that it is more expensive for two people to live seperately than as a couple, we agreed a settlement that left us both short of money by roughly the same amount. This is something you can push for in your own divorce. Your might not get a 'fair' settlement, but you might achieve one that is equally unfair on both parties, and this might be the best that can be acheived. 

If your wife is being beligerant during mediation, you can talk to the mediator about whether they regard the mediation process as having failed. It might be as well to use their experience to help you judge when to stop mediation. I would investigate if the mediator can help you and your wife document the points that you have agreed (if any) and those points that remain in dispute. Just having this list would help your solicitors and that will save money. 

The other you can do is try to point out to your wife that negotiating through a solictor is expensive and this cost will have to be paid at some point, and if both of you run up substantial legal bills, this is going to slow down your financial recoveries from the divorce.

RAS

Your wife's savings account is part of the marital assets, as in everything you own individually or jointly is an asset of the marriage.

Regardless of who owns the house, who paid the bills, whose pension it is and whose name is on the savings account or debt.

Jude57

RobertF82 said:

But isn't the court's purpose to find a fair solution for both parties?

Strictly speaking, no. The Court's purpose is to achieve an equitable settlement, taking all factors into account and equitable doesn't necessarily mean what you might consider fair. Other posters have set out most of what the Court will factor in financially so I won't repeat them.

You need to rid yourself of the idea that your wife has contributed nothing during your marriage. The Court regards a stay at home parent as being an equal contributor to a family as a parent who works outside the home. Unless you can evidence that, while working from home you were also the primary caregiver for the children while your wife did, what? then you'll have a hard time convincing a judge that your wife's contribution to the family was zero. Consider who did the majority of the household chores, childcare, including nursery or school runs and activities, laundry and ironing, clothes and shoe shopping for the children, menu planning and shopping, cooking, cleaning etc as well as household and family admin such as buying cards and presents for family and friends etc and if it wasn't you, then presumably it was your wife. All those things have value and if you'd had to pay someone to do those things, you'd soon see the value.

The first consideration for the Court is the children's wellbeing and to safeguard that, a Judge could order that you be allowed to buy your wife out of the family home, especially if this allows the children to continue to attend their current school. Your wife needs to be able to buy an adequate home for herself and the children (with a mortgage if necessary). The Judge will also take into consideration the attempt at mediation and may not be well disposed to anyone who hasn't fully engaged with the process, since it is intended to streamline the Court's time. If a Judge has to rule on every little thing, the process becomes very cumbersome, and extremely expensive which, of course, comes out of the joint assets, leaving both sides much poorer.

RobertF82

Jude57 said:

RobertF82 said:

But isn't the court's purpose to find a fair solution for both parties?

Strictly speaking, no. The Court's purpose is to achieve an equitable settlement, taking all factors into account and equitable doesn't necessarily mean what you might consider fair. Other posters have set out most of what the Court will factor in financially so I won't repeat them.

You need to rid yourself of the idea that your wife has contributed nothing during your marriage. The Court regards a stay at home parent as being an equal contributor to a family as a parent who works outside the home. Unless you can evidence that, while working from home you were also the primary caregiver for the children while your wife did, what? then you'll have a hard time convincing a judge that your wife's contribution to the family was zero. Consider who did the majority of the household chores, childcare, including nursery or school runs and activities, laundry and ironing, clothes and shoe shopping for the children, menu planning and shopping, cooking, cleaning etc as well as household and family admin such as buying cards and presents for family and friends etc and if it wasn't you, then presumably it was your wife. All those things have value and if you'd had to pay someone to do those things, you'd soon see the value.

The first consideration for the Court is the children's wellbeing and to safeguard that, a Judge could order that you be allowed to buy your wife out of the family home, especially if this allows the children to continue to attend their current school. Your wife needs to be able to buy an adequate home for herself and the children (with a mortgage if necessary). The Judge will also take into consideration the attempt at mediation and may not be well disposed to anyone who hasn't fully engaged with the process, since it is intended to streamline the Court's time. If a Judge has to rule on every little thing, the process becomes very cumbersome, and extremely expensive which, of course, comes out of the joint assets, leaving both sides much poorer.

I didn't say that she contributed nothing. I did say that FINANCIALLY she contributed nothing, specifically since when she went back to work. This is extremely easy to evidence.

Maybe you didn't read my post well enough. I hope you have more clarity now

Thanks

RobertF82

Jude57 said:

RobertF82 said:

But isn't the court's purpose to find a fair solution for both parties?

Strictly speaking, no. The Court's purpose is to achieve an equitable settlement, taking all factors into account and equitable doesn't necessarily mean what you might consider fair. Other posters have set out most of what the Court will factor in financially so I won't repeat them.

You need to rid yourself of the idea that your wife has contributed nothing during your marriage. The Court regards a stay at home parent as being an equal contributor to a family as a parent who works outside the home. Unless you can evidence that, while working from home you were also the primary caregiver for the children while your wife did, what? then you'll have a hard time convincing a judge that your wife's contribution to the family was zero. Consider who did the majority of the household chores, childcare, including nursery or school runs and activities, laundry and ironing, clothes and shoe shopping for the children, menu planning and shopping, cooking, cleaning etc as well as household and family admin such as buying cards and presents for family and friends etc and if it wasn't you, then presumably it was your wife. All those things have value and if you'd had to pay someone to do those things, you'd soon see the value.

The first consideration for the Court is the children's wellbeing and to safeguard that, a Judge could order that you be allowed to buy your wife out of the family home, especially if this allows the children to continue to attend their current school. Your wife needs to be able to buy an adequate home for herself and the children (with a mortgage if necessary). The Judge will also take into consideration the attempt at mediation and may not be well disposed to anyone who hasn't fully engaged with the process, since it is intended to streamline the Court's time. If a Judge has to rule on every little thing, the process becomes very cumbersome, and extremely expensive which, of course, comes out of the joint assets, leaving both sides much poorer.

Plus I'm not asking about the time when she was out of work. I'm fine with that. I'm asking about the last years when she went back to work full-time and has made zero financial contributions and in addition to that cannot be considered primary care giver since we both equally did our bit (even that I can argue I've done way more than her in regards to things such as school runs, shopping, cooking and cleaning but let's not go there, let's say we both did our part)

Yorkshire_Dangermouse

What has been discussed around custody of your son - 50/50 ?  

RobertF82

Yorkshire_Dangermouse said:

What has been discussed around custody of your son - 50/50 ?  

she wants him mon to fri with me taking him sat sun.

i said !!!!!! no, i want 50/50