Divorcing empty nesters...
Discussion
olly22n said:
I'm sure you know this already, but I am far happier in my 2 up 2 down terraced house with no garden or driveway than I ever was in my big 4 bed detached, f&r gardened triple driveway double garage house with her.
Material possessions mean f
k all in the long run.
Great to hear it allowed you to move on, I struggle with that to a degree as I had no say as to how things were divided, I am trying to let it go and move on but it is still fresh and does still grate, especially as she then went on to not honour her commitment to home both our children.Material possessions mean f
k all in the long run.I am in the process of buying a plot of land and then building another place, nothing like the last one but it will be all mine, designed and built by me, I am hoping this will allow me to move on and focus on the future now.
Tonker, superb that exchange of contracts has happened, that's one massive stumbling block out of the way, I just hope she does not go to court before completion to have the proceeds of sale held by the conveyencing solicitor instead.
Just as you think you have closed one avenue they seem to open another!
Edited by PAUL500 on Monday 27th February 21:33
Robertj21a said:
olly22n said:
Robertj21a said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
To join the commonwealth of agreement, I had the same outcome; my wife got all the money and possessions, which always all she cared about and I got my life back, which was all I cared about. Made the money back a couple of times over at least since
It seems to have become the usual outcome nowadays. It certainly suits most women and, if the guy has a reasonably good job, he soon realises just how much it suits him to be 'free' of it all too.It may be ok-ish if the guy has a reasonably good job, but what about the others who don't, and are left penniless in a bedsit ?
Freedom doesn't come for free and I am one of the lucky ones with a reasonably good job who just about has enough time to get it all back. What on earth are you supposed to do if you divorce in your 50's with a low paid job and the best you can hope for is renting a bedsit for the rest of your life.
What I really fail to understand is why women think they are entitled to keep everything and just expect the man to go away and keep paying for everything. I know women who are living in million pound plus houses who still think there husbands are losers even though they paid for it all.
I would actually argue that marriage is just a government scheme to transfer wealth from men to women so the state doesn't have to pickup the tab.
Joey Deacon said:
What I really fail to understand is why women think they are entitled to keep everything and just expect the man to go away and keep paying for everything
A guy at work is on the verge of splitting with his wife, she's been unhappy for a while now and whilst they still live in the same house it seems a case of who'll blink first and leave.He's always paid the mortgage and general upkeep of the house, she's paid for bills, food holidays, kids stuff etc so pretty much they have paid an equal amount into the marriage.
They have a £400k house with approx £150k outstanding on the mortgage, she received an inheritance of £75k a few years back which she's hardly dented (it seems in anticipation of leaving him, he received a smaller inheritance a couple of years back which he used to clear some joint debt and do a few house improvements) she has assumed and is expecting that in the event of a divorce he will be told to walk away and she will get 100% of the house, she can then clear half the outstanding mortgage with her inheritance and then mortgage the remaining; which she can comfortably afford to do, she's worked it out already.
They have 3 kids, 20, 14 and 13.
It's the brazen self entitlement that she seems to think that she will have when it comes to the house, I'm hoping she will get a massive shock.
HTP99 said:
Joey Deacon said:
What I really fail to understand is why women think they are entitled to keep everything and just expect the man to go away and keep paying for everything
A guy at work is on the verge of splitting with his wife, she's been unhappy for a while now and whilst they still live in the same house it seems a case of who'll blink first and leave.He's always paid the mortgage and general upkeep of the house, she's paid for bills, food holidays, kids stuff etc so pretty much they have paid an equal amount into the marriage.
They have a £400k house with approx £150k outstanding on the mortgage, she received an inheritance of £75k a few years back which she's hardly dented (it seems in anticipation of leaving him, he received a smaller inheritance a couple of years back which he used to clear some joint debt and do a few house improvements) she has assumed and is expecting that in the event of a divorce he will be told to walk away and she will get 100% of the house, she can then clear half the outstanding mortgage with her inheritance and then mortgage the remaining; which she can comfortably afford to do, she's worked it out already.
They have 3 kids, 20, 14 and 13.
It's the brazen self entitlement that she seems to think that she will have when it comes to the house, I'm hoping she will get a massive shock.
If they are both working it will probably be a 70/30 split in her favour as two children under 18, if she can cover the 30% by using the inheritance and a new mortgage then she will get the house and he will have his 30% in cash, if not house ordered to be sold and mortgage paid off. Clean break. CSA will deal with childcare.
She will keep all her inheritance, the fact he used up his will simply be tough luck, and pensions shared 50/50 if they don't have one each.
Plus they will both have a min £15k legal bill each
Based on her current beliefs and self entitlement that will fuel her to push it all the way to a final hearing with blinkers fully on.
If the husbands brief proposes a mesher order to the judge then he could get the house eventually sold and a 50/50 split when the youngest is out of full time education, so 21 plus. In the meantime its a bedsit above a kebab shop for him.
Edited by PAUL500 on Wednesday 1st March 13:56
No, as inheritances if still liquid in cash or assets tend to get ring fenced.
Problem is there is no real hard and fast framework to follow in family law, a single judge can basically decide whatever they like, and any appeal then has to be via the appeal court and only ever win if a distinct point of law has not be followed.
Simply not being fair is not a reason to accept an appeal.
To qualify, any info I write on this thread is just first hand learned knowledge, having been forced through the process myself, (I was as green as grass to the actual typical outcomes at the time of my separation) and not quite believing its how it all works in reality. I am not a legal professional, they are way too slippery to put anything concrete in writing that can come back to bite them.
Everyone goes into court at a final hearing with no clue whatsoever what the outcome could be, that includes barristers and solicitors, they get paid whatever happens anyway. The whole barrister thing still puzzles me, they read a brief report produced by the solicitor, sometimes only minutes before court session, then go in and spout stuff as if they lived in the house throughout the whole ordeal, and the judges act as if you are not even in the room.
Have 10 judges in a final hearing, you would have 10 different outcomes.
Problem is there is no real hard and fast framework to follow in family law, a single judge can basically decide whatever they like, and any appeal then has to be via the appeal court and only ever win if a distinct point of law has not be followed.
Simply not being fair is not a reason to accept an appeal.
To qualify, any info I write on this thread is just first hand learned knowledge, having been forced through the process myself, (I was as green as grass to the actual typical outcomes at the time of my separation) and not quite believing its how it all works in reality. I am not a legal professional, they are way too slippery to put anything concrete in writing that can come back to bite them.
Everyone goes into court at a final hearing with no clue whatsoever what the outcome could be, that includes barristers and solicitors, they get paid whatever happens anyway. The whole barrister thing still puzzles me, they read a brief report produced by the solicitor, sometimes only minutes before court session, then go in and spout stuff as if they lived in the house throughout the whole ordeal, and the judges act as if you are not even in the room.
Have 10 judges in a final hearing, you would have 10 different outcomes.
Edited by PAUL500 on Wednesday 1st March 14:05
PAUL500 said:
No, as inheritances if still liquid in cash or assets tend to get ring fenced.
I'm not sure that's the case (why would it be?)Generally in divorce settlements in England and Wales all assets of the marriage are pooled and treated as joint assets. When it comes to money or property that you’ve inherited, it is worth pointing out that these are not automatically excluded from the assets to be divided.
http://www.bbc-law.co.uk/legal-news/inheritance-an...
Likewise, the assumption that the woman will automatically be entitled to 70% of the assets just because there are kids involved - may have been true once, far less so now.
Friend of mine has just gone through this, house was sold, mortgage cleared and the equity was divided 50/50.
There weren't £15K of legal fees either (in fact there were virtually none - both parties took legal advice, both were separately told that 50/50 was the most likely outcome so they just got on with it).
You are talking about common sense people doing a deal and avoiding court and the associated costs.
However that takes two to tango, if one wont play ball and initiates a financial process via the courts then the other is from that point on just along for the ride without any control of the matter.
What you read on legal websites as to what should happen in theory and what actually happens are very different things.
I would say your friend was very very lucky to come aware with such a joint agreement if children were involved, had it gone to a final hearing he would not have had 50%, and lucky to get 40%
However that takes two to tango, if one wont play ball and initiates a financial process via the courts then the other is from that point on just along for the ride without any control of the matter.
What you read on legal websites as to what should happen in theory and what actually happens are very different things.
I would say your friend was very very lucky to come aware with such a joint agreement if children were involved, had it gone to a final hearing he would not have had 50%, and lucky to get 40%
Edited by PAUL500 on Wednesday 1st March 14:12
PAUL500 said:
You are talking about common sense people doing a deal and avoiding court and the associated costs.
However that takes two to tango, if one wont play ball and initiates a financial process via the courts then the other is from that point on just along for the ride without any control of the matter.
What you read on legal websites as to what should happen in theory and what actually happens are very different things.
I would say your friend was very very lucky to come aware with such a joint agreement if children were involved, had it gone to a final hearing he would not have had 50%, and lucky to get 40%
How very true. It can all be so much more amicable (and cheaper) if both parties can agree at least a basic framework. Unfortunately, for many situations, it's all far too late and the female [sorry, but it usually is] has already moved on in her mind (and often her body too......)However that takes two to tango, if one wont play ball and initiates a financial process via the courts then the other is from that point on just along for the ride without any control of the matter.
What you read on legal websites as to what should happen in theory and what actually happens are very different things.
I would say your friend was very very lucky to come aware with such a joint agreement if children were involved, had it gone to a final hearing he would not have had 50%, and lucky to get 40%
Edited by PAUL500 on Wednesday 1st March 14:12
Very short story.
Married 14 years, 2 boys, private schools, tenanted home. Wife meets someone else at work, moves out, wants divorce, tries to dictate terms, solicitors involved, court, she gets remarried, I get remarried.
It was not without pain and cost, but life goes on and the dark days fade to light.
Ex wife took all savings and the valuable furniture. I kept the stuff needed every day. The house went with my job so no issue there in me retaining the family home. My son's were 7 and 5 then, 30 and 27 now. I got 50% of their non-school time as I could show I had everything necessary for them to spend time with me. The monthly payments almost buried me, but I survived.
Today my younger son and his partner are living with his stepmother and I while they save up for a house. In the 14 months they have been here, he has spent 2 nights at his mothers. My older son lives 2.5 hours drive from me but we talk often and he spends time here with his partner as well as us doing the Le Mans trip twice together. I was always their first port of call if they had a problem, and still am. We have a great relationship.
They also have a half sister from my second marriage who they dote on.
I have moved on as has my ex wife. Her life is now very much herself and her husband. Mine is my entire family. I have gone from an employee before my first marriage ended, to a self employed business owner (x2) who is now semi retired (not quite 60!!!). I am building a family business that my 3 children can take over to give them a second income and more security, as well as a base to call 'home'.
The moral of this short story is, that if you work at it you can still enjoy a happy outcome. But it does require hard work and sacrifice.
It is, however, worth it.
Life will get better so don't give up, especially on the children.
Married 14 years, 2 boys, private schools, tenanted home. Wife meets someone else at work, moves out, wants divorce, tries to dictate terms, solicitors involved, court, she gets remarried, I get remarried.
It was not without pain and cost, but life goes on and the dark days fade to light.
Ex wife took all savings and the valuable furniture. I kept the stuff needed every day. The house went with my job so no issue there in me retaining the family home. My son's were 7 and 5 then, 30 and 27 now. I got 50% of their non-school time as I could show I had everything necessary for them to spend time with me. The monthly payments almost buried me, but I survived.
Today my younger son and his partner are living with his stepmother and I while they save up for a house. In the 14 months they have been here, he has spent 2 nights at his mothers. My older son lives 2.5 hours drive from me but we talk often and he spends time here with his partner as well as us doing the Le Mans trip twice together. I was always their first port of call if they had a problem, and still am. We have a great relationship.
They also have a half sister from my second marriage who they dote on.
I have moved on as has my ex wife. Her life is now very much herself and her husband. Mine is my entire family. I have gone from an employee before my first marriage ended, to a self employed business owner (x2) who is now semi retired (not quite 60!!!). I am building a family business that my 3 children can take over to give them a second income and more security, as well as a base to call 'home'.
The moral of this short story is, that if you work at it you can still enjoy a happy outcome. But it does require hard work and sacrifice.
It is, however, worth it.
Life will get better so don't give up, especially on the children.
HTP99 said:
A guy at work is on the verge of splitting with his wife, she's been unhappy for a while now and whilst they still live in the same house it seems a case of who'll blink first and leave.
He's always paid the mortgage and general upkeep of the house, she's paid for bills, food holidays, kids stuff etc so pretty much they have paid an equal amount into the marriage.
They have a £400k house with approx £150k outstanding on the mortgage, she received an inheritance of £75k a few years back which she's hardly dented (it seems in anticipation of leaving him, he received a smaller inheritance a couple of years back which he used to clear some joint debt and do a few house improvements) she has assumed and is expecting that in the event of a divorce he will be told to walk away and she will get 100% of the house, she can then clear half the outstanding mortgage with her inheritance and then mortgage the remaining; which she can comfortably afford to do, she's worked it out already.
They have 3 kids, 20, 14 and 13.
It's the brazen self entitlement that she seems to think that she will have when it comes to the house, I'm hoping she will get a massive shock.
What should happen in my opinion is that when all the kids turn 18 (or 21 if in full time education), the split should be corrected though the value of of the house if possible. So if the resident parent gets an increased share on the basis of keeping the family home for the kids to live in, a proportion should be released back to the other parent as the larger house is no longer required once the dependents are grown up. Either sell the house and downsize to release equity, remortgage, or pay them off with other means.He's always paid the mortgage and general upkeep of the house, she's paid for bills, food holidays, kids stuff etc so pretty much they have paid an equal amount into the marriage.
They have a £400k house with approx £150k outstanding on the mortgage, she received an inheritance of £75k a few years back which she's hardly dented (it seems in anticipation of leaving him, he received a smaller inheritance a couple of years back which he used to clear some joint debt and do a few house improvements) she has assumed and is expecting that in the event of a divorce he will be told to walk away and she will get 100% of the house, she can then clear half the outstanding mortgage with her inheritance and then mortgage the remaining; which she can comfortably afford to do, she's worked it out already.
They have 3 kids, 20, 14 and 13.
It's the brazen self entitlement that she seems to think that she will have when it comes to the house, I'm hoping she will get a massive shock.
I don't see why it doesn't work like that?
mjb1 said:
HTP99 said:
A guy at work is on the verge of splitting with his wife, she's been unhappy for a while now and whilst they still live in the same house it seems a case of who'll blink first and leave.
He's always paid the mortgage and general upkeep of the house, she's paid for bills, food holidays, kids stuff etc so pretty much they have paid an equal amount into the marriage.
They have a £400k house with approx £150k outstanding on the mortgage, she received an inheritance of £75k a few years back which she's hardly dented (it seems in anticipation of leaving him, he received a smaller inheritance a couple of years back which he used to clear some joint debt and do a few house improvements) she has assumed and is expecting that in the event of a divorce he will be told to walk away and she will get 100% of the house, she can then clear half the outstanding mortgage with her inheritance and then mortgage the remaining; which she can comfortably afford to do, she's worked it out already.
They have 3 kids, 20, 14 and 13.
It's the brazen self entitlement that she seems to think that she will have when it comes to the house, I'm hoping she will get a massive shock.
What should happen in my opinion is that when all the kids turn 18 (or 21 if in full time education), the split should be corrected though the value of of the house if possible. So if the resident parent gets an increased share on the basis of keeping the family home for the kids to live in, a proportion should be released back to the other parent as the larger house is no longer required once the dependents are grown up. Either sell the house and downsize to release equity, remortgage, or pay them off with other means.He's always paid the mortgage and general upkeep of the house, she's paid for bills, food holidays, kids stuff etc so pretty much they have paid an equal amount into the marriage.
They have a £400k house with approx £150k outstanding on the mortgage, she received an inheritance of £75k a few years back which she's hardly dented (it seems in anticipation of leaving him, he received a smaller inheritance a couple of years back which he used to clear some joint debt and do a few house improvements) she has assumed and is expecting that in the event of a divorce he will be told to walk away and she will get 100% of the house, she can then clear half the outstanding mortgage with her inheritance and then mortgage the remaining; which she can comfortably afford to do, she's worked it out already.
They have 3 kids, 20, 14 and 13.
It's the brazen self entitlement that she seems to think that she will have when it comes to the house, I'm hoping she will get a massive shock.
I don't see why it doesn't work like that?
Seems to be almost all about money here. Just to test the theory , say you were in a prison with a ten year sentence and it transpires that you could be freed if you gave up the location of your legal investments that you still owned which would supply you with a good income when you complete your ten years. Would you give them up?
Many people stay together just for the money and comfort but lead fairly separate lives. I have met quite a few. If you really need to get out be prepared to pay and try to avoid the entire estate going to legal fees just to make a point.
Many people stay together just for the money and comfort but lead fairly separate lives. I have met quite a few. If you really need to get out be prepared to pay and try to avoid the entire estate going to legal fees just to make a point.
PAUL500 said:
I would say your friend was very very lucky to come aware with such a joint agreement if children were involved, had it gone to a final hearing he would not have had 50%, and lucky to get 40%
Well, not according to his (very clued up family law specialist) solicitor, and presumably not according to hers (otherwise I've no doubt she'd have tried to shaft him for more).Still, what do they know...
RDMcG said:
Seems to be almost all about money here. Just to test the theory , say you were in a prison with a ten year sentence and it transpires that you could be freed if you gave up the location of your legal investments that you still owned which would supply you with a good income when you complete your ten years. Would you give them up?
Many people stay together just for the money and comfort but lead fairly separate lives. I have met quite a few. If you really need to get out be prepared to pay and try to avoid the entire estate going to legal fees just to make a point.
For many people it's not about having more money - it's about simply not being able to afford to do anything else.Many people stay together just for the money and comfort but lead fairly separate lives. I have met quite a few. If you really need to get out be prepared to pay and try to avoid the entire estate going to legal fees just to make a point.
I know someone that stayed in a 'bad' marriage because at 40 years old, the alternative was to move back into his old bedroom at his parents house and stay there for the next 20 years.
Not everyone is a powerfully built company director that can 'just make the money back'.
Some people, once they're out, and supporting their kids, literally don't have enough left to provide for themselves.
Ari said:
For many people it's not about having more money - it's about simply not being able to afford to do anything else.
I know someone that stayed in a 'bad' marriage because at 40 years old, the alternative was to move back into his old bedroom at his parents house and stay there for the next 20 years.
Not everyone is a powerfully built company director that can 'just make the money back'.
Some people, once they're out, and supporting their kids, literally don't have enough left to provide for themselves.
Well, easy to say, but if you're earning potential is very low and you will be in such a position should a marriage fail then you should think very carefully about the risks you are taking on (getting married, having kids!)I know someone that stayed in a 'bad' marriage because at 40 years old, the alternative was to move back into his old bedroom at his parents house and stay there for the next 20 years.
Not everyone is a powerfully built company director that can 'just make the money back'.
Some people, once they're out, and supporting their kids, literally don't have enough left to provide for themselves.
Ari said:
RDMcG said:
Seems to be almost all about money here. Just to test the theory , say you were in a prison with a ten year sentence and it transpires that you could be freed if you gave up the location of your legal investments that you still owned which would supply you with a good income when you complete your ten years. Would you give them up?
Many people stay together just for the money and comfort but lead fairly separate lives. I have met quite a few. If you really need to get out be prepared to pay and try to avoid the entire estate going to legal fees just to make a point.
For many people it's not about having more money - it's about simply not being able to afford to do anything else.Many people stay together just for the money and comfort but lead fairly separate lives. I have met quite a few. If you really need to get out be prepared to pay and try to avoid the entire estate going to legal fees just to make a point.
I know someone that stayed in a 'bad' marriage because at 40 years old, the alternative was to move back into his old bedroom at his parents house and stay there for the next 20 years.
Not everyone is a powerfully built company director that can 'just make the money back'.
Some people, once they're out, and supporting their kids, literally don't have enough left to provide for themselves.
He spent a lot of time at my mums but never officially moved in as that wasn't what either of them (probably more my mum TBF) wanted, however they had been together for almost 10 years.
Her partner claimed that both himself and his wife couldn't afford to split and each find elsewhere to live, he basically lived in 1 room of the house and him and his wife didn't communicate.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff