Divorce - Educate me why it ruins your finances?
Discussion
Musing over another thread (working poverty or similar) and I see someone compare a person on a second marriage versus someone who never divorced, and how the latter would be better off. It comes up a lot.
Let's say missus doesn't work, and we have £100k house and £100k savings, 2x children of school age. I think this typically plays out that the missus gets custody, keeps 50% or more of the savings, lives in the house (but I can ask for it to be sold and access my % equity when kids are 18), and I'll continue to pay my share of the mortgage (50%?) and child maintenance.
The kids bit I understand. The property you could see as an investment which should see appreciation, savings - fair enough as you kind of know what you're signing up to. Note: Ask me again for my views if I ever divorce
But then a year later you find another person who has similar circumstances as your ex and received the same % splits etc. If your new partner divorced someone wealthier than you, aren't you actually going to be better off as both fellas are just paying each others ex's?
Assuming it didn't get messy and you all sunk money into the legals that is!
Let's say missus doesn't work, and we have £100k house and £100k savings, 2x children of school age. I think this typically plays out that the missus gets custody, keeps 50% or more of the savings, lives in the house (but I can ask for it to be sold and access my % equity when kids are 18), and I'll continue to pay my share of the mortgage (50%?) and child maintenance.
The kids bit I understand. The property you could see as an investment which should see appreciation, savings - fair enough as you kind of know what you're signing up to. Note: Ask me again for my views if I ever divorce
But then a year later you find another person who has similar circumstances as your ex and received the same % splits etc. If your new partner divorced someone wealthier than you, aren't you actually going to be better off as both fellas are just paying each others ex's?
Assuming it didn't get messy and you all sunk money into the legals that is!
The issue is most people getting divorced don't have a £100K house and £100K in cash. Ordinarily they will have a house with a mortgage and little savings.
What tends to happen is the wife stays in the house with the children and the husband has to stay named on the marital home mortgage. Usually the wife will be unable to buy the husband out of his share and she won't earn enough to take over the mortgage in her name.
So the husband ends up in a situation where he cannot get a mortgage on another property as he is still on the mortgage of the marital home. This essentially gives him two options, he can rent a property or he can live with his parents.
Even if they agree to sell the house when the children leave home this is unlikely to leave them enough working years left to get a mortgage to own their own property.
He is also likely to lose half of any pension he has. Then take into account the years of maintenance and child support he will need to pay.
Unless you are a powerfully built director who can just buy another £1 million pound surrey house you are going to be financially compromised for the rest of your life.
What tends to happen is the wife stays in the house with the children and the husband has to stay named on the marital home mortgage. Usually the wife will be unable to buy the husband out of his share and she won't earn enough to take over the mortgage in her name.
So the husband ends up in a situation where he cannot get a mortgage on another property as he is still on the mortgage of the marital home. This essentially gives him two options, he can rent a property or he can live with his parents.
Even if they agree to sell the house when the children leave home this is unlikely to leave them enough working years left to get a mortgage to own their own property.
He is also likely to lose half of any pension he has. Then take into account the years of maintenance and child support he will need to pay.
Unless you are a powerfully built director who can just buy another £1 million pound surrey house you are going to be financially compromised for the rest of your life.
I had to sell the house to give her half the value. She also had half of my pension pot and all of the savings which was around £200,000.
I complained that I should have kept half of the savings but she had already spent it by then.
She took 100% of the value of her car, mine was a company car.
And all this was because she thought life was passing her by.
She had never really worked all her life, tried a few jobs but never liked them or they didnt like her.
My solicitor told me that the deal that she struck was what she expected the court would order for a high earning husband and a non working wife even with no children.
I complained that I should have kept half of the savings but she had already spent it by then.
She took 100% of the value of her car, mine was a company car.
And all this was because she thought life was passing her by.
She had never really worked all her life, tried a few jobs but never liked them or they didnt like her.
My solicitor told me that the deal that she struck was what she expected the court would order for a high earning husband and a non working wife even with no children.
With a 50% failure rate, this and the divorce thread is why i have no plans of marrying.
50% chance of spending your retirement in poverty?
no thanks.
I also dont see why a woman whos never worked should get such a high payout? zero contibution? she should get a job, even if it is sweeping s
t up in toilets.
I've never understood why so many women think they should be able to live a comfortable life off thier ex when everyone else in the real world has to get a job to live comfortably.
50% chance of spending your retirement in poverty?
no thanks.
I also dont see why a woman whos never worked should get such a high payout? zero contibution? she should get a job, even if it is sweeping s
t up in toilets. I've never understood why so many women think they should be able to live a comfortable life off thier ex when everyone else in the real world has to get a job to live comfortably.
BT Summers said:
I had to sell the house to give her half the value. She also had half of my pension pot and all of the savings which was around £200,000.
I complained that I should have kept half of the savings but she had already spent it by then.
She took 100% of the value of her car, mine was a company car.
And all this was because she thought life was passing her by.
She had never really worked all her life, tried a few jobs but never liked them or they didnt like her.
My solicitor told me that the deal that she struck was what she expected the court would order for a high earning husband and a non working wife even with no children.
Colleague of mine was in a similar status - he was a (relatively) high earner, she wasn't. Married 20-odd years. Two kids, in their teens.I complained that I should have kept half of the savings but she had already spent it by then.
She took 100% of the value of her car, mine was a company car.
And all this was because she thought life was passing her by.
She had never really worked all her life, tried a few jobs but never liked them or they didnt like her.
My solicitor told me that the deal that she struck was what she expected the court would order for a high earning husband and a non working wife even with no children.
He came away with a pretty-much 50/50 split on everything - house (no mortgage), savings (substantial), pension pot (massive)
It was slightly weighted in her favour because she was younger than him, but he by no means came away destitute.
He didn't even have to pay child maintenance, because he agreed a 50/50 custody arrangement.
I guess it depends on your circumstances, your will to get what you can out of it and your lawyer.
BT Summers said:
My solicitor told me that the deal that she struck was what she expected the court would order for a high earning husband and a non working wife even with no children.
I think that's the shocking thing to me, as far as the world as changed, it seems when it comes to Divorce, Ex-Husbands are expected and Legally bound to support ex-Wives.Providing for Kids I of course expect, but I can't imagine having to pay my Wife every month if we divorced like some like of compensation for watching Loose Women all those years they were together.
P-Jay said:
BT Summers said:
My solicitor told me that the deal that she struck was what she expected the court would order for a high earning husband and a non working wife even with no children.
I think that's the shocking thing to me, as far as the world as changed, it seems when it comes to Divorce, Ex-Husbands are expected and Legally bound to support ex-Wives.Providing for Kids I of course expect, but I can't imagine having to pay my Wife every month if we divorced like some like of compensation for watching Loose Women all those years they were together.
However what I'm reading is that even if men worked and had a stay-at-home wife (what amounts to a trophy wife) they still have to pay.
1) It doesn't add up to me
2) Why would you allow your other half to have a life of luxury whilst you get to work, anyway? Sod that.
GroundEffect said:
This doesn't add up to me. I fully understand the logic of the wealth being split down the middle if the man was the worker and the woman was the caregiver to the kids. Makes sense.
However what I'm reading is that even if men worked and had a stay-at-home wife (what amounts to a trophy wife) they still have to pay.
1) It doesn't add up to me
2) Why would you allow your other half to have a life of luxury whilst you get to work, anyway? Sod that.
I guess with house wives/home makers the wife has given up her career to have a family - this is career and experience abs earnings she will never recover. Also she has been supporting the husband all along which has helped them to get into the position they are incl pension. However what I'm reading is that even if men worked and had a stay-at-home wife (what amounts to a trophy wife) they still have to pay.
1) It doesn't add up to me
2) Why would you allow your other half to have a life of luxury whilst you get to work, anyway? Sod that.
Don’t get divorced. Don’t sleep around don’t neglect your wife
Psycho Warren said:
With a 50% failure rate, this and the divorce thread is why i have no plans of marrying.
50% chance of spending your retirement in poverty?
no thanks.
I also dont see why a woman whos never worked should get such a high payout? zero contibution? she should get a job, even if it is sweeping st up in toilets.
I've never understood why so many women think they should be able to live a comfortable life off thier ex when everyone else in the real world has to get a job to live comfortably.
Yup,50% chance of spending your retirement in poverty?
no thanks.
I also dont see why a woman whos never worked should get such a high payout? zero contibution? she should get a job, even if it is sweeping s
t up in toilets. I've never understood why so many women think they should be able to live a comfortable life off thier ex when everyone else in the real world has to get a job to live comfortably.
Just was out for a walk with the daughter, she said '' when am I going to find somebody " , I said, " its not even on the radar at the moment "
I have a mortgage free nice size house and a nice car. When I read all these threads/post, finding that women could prove and end up expensive later on.
Plus, I am still firing bullets, even more risky.
Sort of depends on other issues too.
In my case I was 47, house paid, no debts but had a ten year old son. I decided to let her have the lot, including investments etc and also gave her half my earnings of the time for five years plus boarding school for son. The was a lot of anger from her and my primary concern was what my future relationship with my son.
So, ended up with zero assets but also zero debt. Had my clothes, company car, lived in a small apartment for two years. Sort of lean times.
My choice. No regrets. I am reasonably competent at rebuilding and after a few years had managed that. At the time my solicitor was clear that this was not necessary but there are more important things than money. My son never had to move out of the family house, and decades later my ex still has it, surprisingly.
Have an excellent relationship wth my son who has built a successful life of his own.
So, in summary it put my finances back to zero. But it was not permanent and it did not ruin my life.
In my case I was 47, house paid, no debts but had a ten year old son. I decided to let her have the lot, including investments etc and also gave her half my earnings of the time for five years plus boarding school for son. The was a lot of anger from her and my primary concern was what my future relationship with my son.
So, ended up with zero assets but also zero debt. Had my clothes, company car, lived in a small apartment for two years. Sort of lean times.
My choice. No regrets. I am reasonably competent at rebuilding and after a few years had managed that. At the time my solicitor was clear that this was not necessary but there are more important things than money. My son never had to move out of the family house, and decades later my ex still has it, surprisingly.
Have an excellent relationship wth my son who has built a successful life of his own.
So, in summary it put my finances back to zero. But it was not permanent and it did not ruin my life.
Muzzer79 said:
Colleague of mine was in a similar status - he was a (relatively) high earner, she wasn't. Married 20-odd years. Two kids, in their teens.
He came away with a pretty-much 50/50 split on everything - house (no mortgage), savings (substantial), pension pot (massive)
It was slightly weighted in her favour because she was younger than him, but he by no means came away destitute.
He didn't even have to pay child maintenance, because he agreed a 50/50 custody arrangement.
I guess it depends on your circumstances, your will to get what you can out of it and your lawyer.
WTF is all this share your pension BS.He came away with a pretty-much 50/50 split on everything - house (no mortgage), savings (substantial), pension pot (massive)
It was slightly weighted in her favour because she was younger than him, but he by no means came away destitute.
He didn't even have to pay child maintenance, because he agreed a 50/50 custody arrangement.
I guess it depends on your circumstances, your will to get what you can out of it and your lawyer.
Its well distasteful and shouldn't even be on the other halves radar.
throt said:
WTF is all this share your pension BS.
Its well distasteful and shouldn't even be on the other halves radar.
Key issue; In my case as above I front loaded everything, but there was an explicit agreement not to share pension. I used to chair the pension board for my company years ago, and pension is definitely in the deal. I used to see the appeals...first wife, second wife and how the thing gets split. If for instance first wife was there for (say 20 years) and second wife was there for ten, then there would be some kind of split. Its well distasteful and shouldn't even be on the other halves radar.
Very important to get this sorted at the divorce. If no there can be a claim afterwards.
I have seen where second partner of may years ( no marriage) claims a share too. Endless variations.
Welshbeef said:
Don’t get divorced. Don’t sleep around don’t neglect your wife
If only it were that simple, women apply for the divorce in the majority of cases.BT Summers said:
And all this was because she thought life was passing her by.
She had never really worked all her life, tried a few jobs but never liked them or they didnt like her.
I suspect there are a lot of decent husbands, good providers, nice guys who treat their wives with respect and who don't cheat who find themselves in this poisition.She had never really worked all her life, tried a few jobs but never liked them or they didnt like her.
throt said:
WTF is all this share your pension BS.
Its well distasteful and shouldn't even be on the other halves radar.
Well due to having a family and therefore disrupted career & I assume people don’t invest in stay at home Wife’s pension do they. The wife staying at home bringing up the family enables the husband to earn that pension. Its well distasteful and shouldn't even be on the other halves radar.
Salary investments include pension is all part of the union.
Isn’t it the case simply longer term partners can have most of these rights too - so those saying will certainly not get married that’s not going to make a joy of difference.
Joey Deacon said:
I suspect there are a lot of decent husbands, good providers, nice guys who treat their wives with respect and who don't cheat who find themselves in this poisition.
Thats relatively mild for you joey? I've never understood the kept wife thing. Sure if theyve given up work to look after kids and can't get a job after, fair enough, but so many just dont want to work and are happy to do f
k all all day or go from nail bar to cafe etc meeting girly friends all paid for by the husband. Whats in it for the husband? Its almost always those same kind of women who gain that sense of entitlement who wont be putting out for years, and basically view the marriage as a transaction which ends up being very one sided!!! If both of you haven't a pot to piss in, then you arent getting together for money so must like each other at least.
The distasteful side is a significant minority of women view relationships in a materialistic transactional basis. Yeah i might have to shag him for a few years but he is providing me with a stable home, the kids I wanted etc etc etc. And thats all ok and socially acceptable for modern women these days. But if a bloke viewed a marriage as transactional like that - ie I get to have regular blow jobs without paying for it, I get to be seen with a bird with a nice set of tits and arse, have regular sex etc in return for paying for her to frequent nail bars etc. then he would be seen as reducing a woman down to a w
e and considered a pervert and a bad man etc. Now if people want a fairly materialistic relationship then who am i to judge but often it seems to be very one sided and often one partner believes its a genuine loving relationship when the other had a materialistic agenda all along.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff