What’s a fair divorce settlement? Poll discussion

veloo

Gosh! I have just been through the whole thread, and I can see the stark difference in opinions between (majority of) men and women.

I voted "Janet should get nothing", as nothing belongs to her. Neither of them worked after marriage, so neither built up any assets together. I think, John lost the most, because Janet was living off his assets all these 6yrs, and he looses his children too. Plus, he agrees to pay for Janet's future lifestyle...

If a woman wants to marry a man much richer than herself, I would call her just that - "a gold-digger"! Expecting to live off someone else's money is an evil ambition. Same goes for a man too...

My personal opinion is that if Janet can not afford to keep the children, then in the best interests of the children, she should agree to John keeping them, and visit them when she can. Sharing of material assets only last while sharing life and marriage lasts. Not going to work, and allowing someone else to sweat blood and bring home the moolah for a woman to live in all luxury is not "giving up her life", IMHO! But, I understand the law sees things differently, and many people might not agree with me.

Personally, I would tend to agree with some opinions floated above. I too hope to meet the woman of my dreams and share the rest of my life together. But, I think, now, that I should be very careful, and check her assets, income, etc. are atleast equal to mine. If not, possibly be together, but certainly live apart. No marriage, and definitely no living together...

Marriage made in heaven, but ends in hell!?!

mrg9999

PerlOfWisdom wrote: »

I'm a man and I voted 50% for the following reasons:

An average man will usually have to give his ex 50%, leaving him struggling to start again. She is awarded this not because the courts want to be fair but so that she can't claim benefits - saving money for the government.

If an average man has to suffer so much, why should a wealthy man get away with it so lightly - he will still have ample money to live for the rest of his life.

It would be saying that there should be one law for the wealthy and another for the rest of us.

I'm a man
If I'd had 10 Million quid, I'd sure get a better lawyer, for a pre-nup, if i didn't then it would be my own fault.I've asked loads of ladies if they'd go out with me, and most say "not even for a million quid", I'm jsut one of life's losers I expect.

Mozette

Blimey! I thought I was fairly cynical, but some of you lot...

Well, when I split up I gave my ex a sum of money - not because I had to, but because I wanted to. All the assets were mine, still it was my ex's choice to beggar off, but I still wouldn't want to see someone I used to care about have a harder time than necessary. Not that I'm minted, I'm still in debt (the debts were mine as well as the assets, even though we both built up a lot of the debt!)

"it's so easy to laugh, it's so easy to hate; it takes guts to be gentle and kind"

veloo

Mozette wrote: »

Well, when I split up I gave my ex a sum of money - not because I had to, but because I wanted to.

Mozette, I admire you for being "gentle and kind". May there be more men (and women) like you.

But, may I point out that, you giving away something which belongs to you of your own, is vastly different from someone dragging you through the courts, making you wash your laundry in public, and taking what belongs to you.

Mozette

veloo wrote: »

Mozette, I admire you for being "gentle and kind". May there be more men (and women) like you.

But, may I point out that, you giving away something which belongs to you of your own, is vastly different from someone dragging you through the courts, making you wash your laundry in public, and taking what belongs to you.

Fair point Veloo; I likewise don't see why someone would try and get something to which they were not entitled. Had my ex tried tried that he would've found that I'm no pushover. But there again, he wouldn't have done that.
One of the things I found odd was that when we split lots of people warned me about that. I mean, he may not have been a perfect husband (doubt I was a perfect wife) but then, no one is perfect. Doesn't make them entirely bad though.
I just don't get why some people have to be so nasty is all.

parsley_the_lion

I voted that Janet should get 10% only.

Why?

The children are separately catered for by John in the offered settlement.

As both Janet and John 'retired' after John sold his £10M business, they have both been caring for the children (not just Janets responsibility or main task).

As both have not worked for 6 years then both have the same oppertunities to rejoin the job market if they wish (but having at least £1M in Janets case this may not be a desparate worry - especially as the children are looked after separately through Johns settlement).

I would have voted the same way if genders had been changed (i.e. none contributor to family wealth gets a modest 10% in recognition of their financial input to the stability of the partnership in the relationship).

PtL

veloo

Mozette wrote: »

I just don't get why some people have to be so nasty is all

If everyone was kind and gentle to everyone else, the world would have been such a different place...

You say that you gave some money to your ex because you wanted to, and not because you had to. You also say that your ex wouldn't have tried to pushover you. I wonder, if these actions are related?

I agree with you that divorces happen because neither the husband nor the wife is perfect. I don't agree when people try to blame all faults on the other party. "It takes two to tango!!!"

And if there are children involved, the father always suffers the most...

garrick

I voted A, she shouldn't get anything.

He had already earned that money before he had met her and she had lived off it for 6 years, without contributing. neither worked and both stayed at home to look after the children so its not as if she had to stall her career while he was out working.

child maintenance is separate from spousal maintenance - he is giving her money to keep them and because they are young, she would more than likely get the house too. And if he's a millionaire, she'll be getting plenty anyway.

sasp

I voted 50% for her, however I may have a different opinion had I not experienced divorce. I don't agree at all with any partner in a marriage split getting more than their fair share.

My own situation was that when my ex and I split, we both agreed to divide the house,assets etc 50/50. I was told so many times that I could have got more as I was caring for our children, but I don't consider my children a pawn, my ex and I both had to start again, and I knew my ex would have been very bitter if I had left him in a financial predicament. In our situation, both my ex and myself had worked full time and had contributed equally. My worry was ultimately for my children, and I wanted everything to be as painless for them as possible, even though I had to move home with them.

The result 4 years later is that my ex regularly pays his maintenance and sees his children, and they were not subjected to months/years of nastiness over money.

Money is not the important issue, children are.

Tiktoc_2

Great discussion point this one. An emotive subject and we all have our views.

I'm a bloke and I voted she should get 10%. The business success was before the marriage and the ex-husband has agreed good support for the children. A million is a big sum and will give the ex-wife several years to find a new life / new career etc. She might even re-marry a wealthier man.

I dont agree with setting aside big capital sums for the children at 18 - too young in my view. Hard to decide what 'maturity' is, though, and what age is appropriate. However, I just feel 'teens' is too young to handle large sums. I guess we all learn from our mistakes! and make those at any time in our lives!

Fixed percentages dont really seem right. Each case should be on the circumstances appropriate to the situation including the finances, nature of the split and the post split attitude eg the non-caring parent still providing for children / showing interest in them etc.

Like others I've been through this but fortunately did not have 10m. My generous monthly payments (more than statutory guideline) for the children was spent on luxury items for my ex's lifestyle and relatively little for the direct benefit of the lads. No more Mr Nice guy from me in future.