Marriage breakdown
Discussion
lee_fr200 said:
There you go mate deleted my comments as tbh I can't be arsed I kno what happened and was just sharing a story I don't expect to be called a liar by someone who has no clue about the situation
Well that was pointless as Loon has quoted you.Believe your story even less now. You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of how Courts work.
GuitarPlayer63 said:
Step 1: Get legal advice now
Step 2: Try to figure out what the "buy-out" price is that doesn't leave you hating her forever
Step 3: Get on with the rest of your life and be happy
That's essentially the plan! Step 2: Try to figure out what the "buy-out" price is that doesn't leave you hating her forever
Step 3: Get on with the rest of your life and be happy
Got a solicitor lined up, filled in the world's longest questionnaire and have the first meeting on Monday. At £200+ per hour, he'd better talk quickly!
Also trying to get the wife to name her price as an opening gambit for step 2 - unsuccessfully so far, but I'll keep plugging away!
The first lesson has been learned; the only winners in an angry divorce are solicitors. Keep it amicable, no matter what the reasons turn out to be for the split.
She probably won't name her price but your solicitor wil have a good idea what it's likely to cost realistically. Often trying to argue that down means spending twice as much as you save!
She probably won't name her price but your solicitor wil have a good idea what it's likely to cost realistically. Often trying to argue that down means spending twice as much as you save!
So... Just for my own clarification then.
A guy is married to a girl for 5 years. They have no children.
She brings nothing to the table, but pays some money to the bloke to cover some of her costs.
5 years later they want to get divorced.
My understanding was that the division of assets would not be 50:50, but be proportional to who bring in what to the home. In this instance the girl didn't bring anything and would leave with nothing.
Am i right so far?
The part where i thought the courts might be interested in why the marriage broke down was to do with the appointment of care.
The guy cant just kick her out of the home, he must pay to look after her for a while.
But what if she is running off with a multi millionaire?
Or am i living in wonderland and the bloke gets shafted for 50% of everything she has not helped earn? (Entirely possible by the way)
A guy is married to a girl for 5 years. They have no children.
She brings nothing to the table, but pays some money to the bloke to cover some of her costs.
5 years later they want to get divorced.
My understanding was that the division of assets would not be 50:50, but be proportional to who bring in what to the home. In this instance the girl didn't bring anything and would leave with nothing.
Am i right so far?
The part where i thought the courts might be interested in why the marriage broke down was to do with the appointment of care.
The guy cant just kick her out of the home, he must pay to look after her for a while.
But what if she is running off with a multi millionaire?
Or am i living in wonderland and the bloke gets shafted for 50% of everything she has not helped earn? (Entirely possible by the way)
Prizam said:
So... Just for my own clarification then.
A guy is married to a girl for 5 years. They have no children.
She brings nothing to the table, but pays some money to the bloke to cover some of her costs.
5 years later they want to get divorced.
My understanding was that the division of assets would not be 50:50, but be proportional to who bring in what to the home. In this instance the girl didn't bring anything and would leave with nothing.
Am i right so far?
The part where i thought the courts might be interested in why the marriage broke down was to do with the appointment of care.
The guy cant just kick her out of the home, he must pay to look after her for a while.
But what if she is running off with a multi millionaire?
Or am i living in wonderland and the bloke gets shafted for 50% of everything she has not helped earn? (Entirely possible by the way)
No 50/50 split, no duty for either to take care of the other. Courts decide what is a fair split of assets. Conduct is not relevant at all, other than to get a reason to divorce. A guy is married to a girl for 5 years. They have no children.
She brings nothing to the table, but pays some money to the bloke to cover some of her costs.
5 years later they want to get divorced.
My understanding was that the division of assets would not be 50:50, but be proportional to who bring in what to the home. In this instance the girl didn't bring anything and would leave with nothing.
Am i right so far?
The part where i thought the courts might be interested in why the marriage broke down was to do with the appointment of care.
The guy cant just kick her out of the home, he must pay to look after her for a while.
But what if she is running off with a multi millionaire?
Or am i living in wonderland and the bloke gets shafted for 50% of everything she has not helped earn? (Entirely possible by the way)
LoonR1 said:
The first lesson has been learned; the only winners in an angry divorce are solicitors. Keep it amicable, no matter what the reasons turn out to be for the split.
This. My first marriage ended because she decided that she wanted to take a jet-setting job and my presence was preventing that. We met at a pub in Waterloo Station, talked through what we felt was fair and came to an agreement which we then told our respective solicitors. After six years of cohabitation and three of marriage I walked away with about 60% of the joint assets- less than I'd put in but an amount I was happy with. We were both then able to move on with our lives with as little bitterness as possible and the solicitors fees were kept to a minimum.Prizam said:
Or am i living in wonderland and the bloke gets shafted for 50% of everything she has not helped earn? (Entirely possible by the way)
You are forgetting that a marriage is a union of two people, mind, body, soul and bank account! With all my worldly goods etc.The courts recognise that for short marriages an equal division is not necessarily fair so have rather adopted the basis of taking back the value of what you brought to the marriage and divide anything left equally (this assuming no sprogs).
The issue is what is 'short'. Again the adoption is 5 years but it's not a law, and courts can and do take account of the length of the relationship prior to the marriage. So in the OP's case a 9 year combined relationship could easily result in an equal division of assets if a Judge had to decide for them.
Alfa numeric said:
LoonR1 said:
The first lesson has been learned; the only winners in an angry divorce are solicitors. Keep it amicable, no matter what the reasons turn out to be for the split.
This. My first marriage ended because she decided that she wanted to take a jet-setting job and my presence was preventing that. We met at a pub in Waterloo Station, talked through what we felt was fair and came to an agreement which we then told our respective solicitors. After six years of cohabitation and three of marriage I walked away with about 60% of the joint assets- less than I'd put in but an amount I was happy with. We were both then able to move on with our lives with as little bitterness as possible and the solicitors fees were kept to a minimum.PurpleMoonlight said:
Prizam said:
Or am i living in wonderland and the bloke gets shafted for 50% of everything she has not helped earn? (Entirely possible by the way)
You are forgetting that a marriage is a union of two people, mind, body, soul and bank account! With all my worldly goods etc.The courts recognise that for short marriages an equal division is not necessarily fair so have rather adopted the basis of taking back the value of what you brought to the marriage and divide anything left equally (this assuming no sprogs).
The issue is what is 'short'. Again the adoption is 5 years but it's not a law, and courts can and do take account of the length of the relationship prior to the marriage. So in the OP's case a 9 year combined relationship could easily result in an equal division of assets if a Judge had to decide for them.
Either way, i take yours and Loon's point.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Prizam said:
Or am i living in wonderland and the bloke gets shafted for 50% of everything she has not helped earn? (Entirely possible by the way)
You are forgetting that a marriage is a union of two people, mind, body, soul and bank account! With all my worldly goods etc.The courts recognise that for short marriages an equal division is not necessarily fair so have rather adopted the basis of taking back the value of what you brought to the marriage and divide anything left equally (this assuming no sprogs).
The issue is what is 'short'. Again the adoption is 5 years but it's not a law, and courts can and do take account of the length of the relationship prior to the marriage. So in the OP's case a 9 year combined relationship could easily result in an equal division of assets if a Judge had to decide for them.
If there were some logical steps to determine this it would make sense.
Sorry to read of another relationship gone wrong.
I am glad to read that no children are involved, and at least there appears to be a desire currently to split things in a fair fashion.
Given the reaction of others and the comments so far, it is hard as a bystander to think that the simplest of splits is actually ever possible.
Wish you like OP, I cannot offer any advice, wisdom or if 'I were you comment' but I do hope that common sense prevails, to me its not about saving face or winning, as you and the wife have already lost.
I am glad to read that no children are involved, and at least there appears to be a desire currently to split things in a fair fashion.
Given the reaction of others and the comments so far, it is hard as a bystander to think that the simplest of splits is actually ever possible.
Wish you like OP, I cannot offer any advice, wisdom or if 'I were you comment' but I do hope that common sense prevails, to me its not about saving face or winning, as you and the wife have already lost.
mikees said:
I'm still intrigued by this. I'd always worried there was some stupid 50/50 but say its 10 years, what logic sees a judge giving the person who arrived with nothing and contributed nothing any thing of whats been earned in increasing value (housing I guess).
If there were some logical steps to determine this it would make sense.
There is.If there were some logical steps to determine this it would make sense.
Don't marry.
If you do you have to accept the largely unknown consequences if it fails.
benters said:
Sorry to read of another relationship gone wrong.
I am glad to read that no children are involved, and at least there appears to be a desire currently to split things in a fair fashion.
Given the reaction of others and the comments so far, it is hard as a bystander to think that the simplest of splits is actually ever possible.
Wish you like OP, I cannot offer any advice, wisdom or if 'I were you comment' but I do hope that common sense prevails, to me its not about saving face or winning, as you and the wife have already lost.
Wise words, thanks...I am glad to read that no children are involved, and at least there appears to be a desire currently to split things in a fair fashion.
Given the reaction of others and the comments so far, it is hard as a bystander to think that the simplest of splits is actually ever possible.
Wish you like OP, I cannot offer any advice, wisdom or if 'I were you comment' but I do hope that common sense prevails, to me its not about saving face or winning, as you and the wife have already lost.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff