Divorce help!

[Muzzer79]

An ex-colleague of mine got divorced in his late 40s

Paid off house (c. £400k)
Pension (c. £500k)
Cash in the bank (c. £250k)

And they had two kids, both in early teens.

He struck a deal where all the assets, including the above, were split 50/50.

What really annoyed his now-ex-wife was that he also moved for (and demonstrated it was practical to have) 50/50 custody of the kids, so he didn't have to pay child maintenance (she assumed that she'd get it regardless)

OK, he was annoyed about writing a cheque for the thick end of half a million quid for her 50% share, but it was objectively the right thing to do and he got a clean break.

Good legal representation is key to getting a decent settlement, if you have to go legal.

[wiggy001]

When you are married for a “long time” (not sure what defines long but 12 years does) all assets are “in the pot” so to speak and unless there are particular circumstances the default is that they are shared. Pensions are part of your assets you add to the pot when you marry.

Not right but how it is.

[TownIdiot]

wiggy001 said:

When you are married for a “long time” (not sure what defines long but 12 years does) all assets are “in the pot” so to speak and unless there are particular circumstances the default is that they are shared. Pensions are part of your assets you add to the pot when you marry.

Not right but how it is.

Why isn't it right?

[kingswood]

thanks for all the replies.

he's trying to avoid the solicitor route but out of interest if he gets a brief, and he costs 10k, and she gets a brief that cost 20k, do they split the bill or wld his bill come out of his share of the money and her bill her share?

it does seem the easiest 50/50 but I forgot to mention she didn't work for 20 years when the kids where growing up. the business she has now is only 5 years old but lucrative, ironically set up by my friend in her name. on books this business prob has more 'growth' and earning potential than my mates building business.

also no pensions at all for either of them. the house and businesses where the pension.

I suppose the answer you've all given is the one he doesn't want to hear but it's inevitable. he needs a brief if she doesn't come round soon and accept a 50/50 on the cash in the bank and house.

he needs the cash to get somewhere to live as annoyed paying £700 a month rent for a houser smaller than the kitchen extension he built on the married home last year.

luckily, and been serious, his mental health is ok and he's taking it well. supported by mates who keep him smiling x

[popegregory]

kingswood said:

he's trying to avoid the solicitor route but out of interest if he gets a brief, and he costs 10k, and she gets a brief that cost 20k, do they split the bill or wld his bill come out of his share of the money and her bill her share?

Sorry to hijack but I wondered this too; my parents got divorced and it just seemed that mum could run up whatever legal bills she wanted as she continually disagreed with whatever dad said on principle and dad had to pay whatever he was presented with. Good business to be in it seems.

[Vasco]

skyebear said:

Your friend needs to be seen to lose. Concede something the wife perceives as substantial. It'll be cheaper than paying a solicitor and the kids will inherit everything eventually.

Yes, this.

[oscmax]

kingswood said:

thanks for all the replies.

he's trying to avoid the solicitor route but out of interest if he gets a brief, and he costs 10k, and she gets a brief that cost 20k, do they split the bill or wld his bill come out of his share of the money and her bill her share?

Default would be that each party ends up picking up their own legal bills. Other arrangements can be ordered by the court if it gets that far, usually if one party has been unreasonable or if an offer made has been "beaten".

[Kev_Mk3]

I'd be moving back in to the house if that where me to be bloody minded. I wish him all the best its not going to be an easy ride

[Vasco]

Kev_Mk3 said:

I'd be moving back in to the house if that where me to be bloody minded. I wish him all the best its not going to be an easy ride

She's probably changed the locks.

[wiggy001]

TownIdiot said:

wiggy001 said:

When you are married for a “long time” (not sure what defines long but 12 years does) all assets are “in the pot” so to speak and unless there are particular circumstances the default is that they are shared. Pensions are part of your assets you add to the pot when you marry.

Not right but how it is.

Why isn't it right?

Because I think you should be able to retain 100% of the pension you built up before marriage but there is no option to do this.

I’m obviously bitter on this point as my ex took half my pension (most built up before I even met her) and this is despite her opting out of every work pension scheme she could’ve been part of. A classic case of “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine”.

[wiggy001]

Vasco said:

Kev_Mk3 said:

I'd be moving back in to the house if that where me to be bloody minded. I wish him all the best its not going to be an easy ride

She's probably changed the locks.

Which if the other way around would be considered abuse.

[Animal]

CKY said:

dundarach said:

Get some proper advice and stop being ripped off by his spouse.

Go see a divorce lawyer as soon as possible, explain everything, charge her occupational rent to sharpen her mind and pay the lawyer to sort it all out.

Otherwise, stop moaning to you, give her everything and walk away.

This - i've heard good things from a couple of people about Stowe Family Law; by all accounts they're the sort of people you want working for you rather than against you, the sort of firm i'd be engaging on my behalf were a (soon-to-be-ex) spouse being awkward.

I'd go with a different firm based on personal experience, but OP should engage solicitors ASAP.

[wildoliver]

wiggy001 said:

TownIdiot said:

wiggy001 said:

When you are married for a “long time” (not sure what defines long but 12 years does) all assets are “in the pot” so to speak and unless there are particular circumstances the default is that they are shared. Pensions are part of your assets you add to the pot when you marry.

Not right but how it is.

Why isn't it right?

Because I think you should be able to retain 100% of the pension you built up before marriage but there is no option to do this.

I’m obviously bitter on this point as my ex took half my pension (most built up before I even met her) and this is despite her opting out of every work pension scheme she could’ve been part of. A classic case of “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine”.

In most cases pensions should be exempt. The trouble is the law paints a picture of little wife at home making cakes and raising children, no chance to generate a pension while hubby is at work for a bank earning hundreds of thousands and squirrelling every penny in to a pension. In that case sure, include it, but that's perhaps 1% of cases. Probably not even that. More often it's a couple both of whom work and ones sensibly saved and the other has squandered the money they could have saved, or a man who's supported a wife to effectively sit at home doing nothing for the entirety of the marriage, I've seen this multiple times, infact I was with someone who clearly wanted this lifestyle and left before getting trapped, it's the worst deal any man can get, you meet this good looking girl/woman, move in together, she manages the situation so she doesn't work, you work your arse off to support her, she's bored while you do that, cheats on you, leaves with half of everything. Generally when you find men who are very bitter over divorce that's the pattern they experienced. 50/50 divorces should be a thing, but they should take in to account more factors than they do, and one of those should be the effort put in to the marriage by both partners, a freeloader (of either sex) should not continue to get a free ticket to a life of luxury just because they said I do.

[wiggy001]

wildoliver said:

wiggy001 said:

TownIdiot said:

wiggy001 said:

When you are married for a “long time” (not sure what defines long but 12 years does) all assets are “in the pot” so to speak and unless there are particular circumstances the default is that they are shared. Pensions are part of your assets you add to the pot when you marry.

Not right but how it is.

Why isn't it right?

Because I think you should be able to retain 100% of the pension you built up before marriage but there is no option to do this.

I’m obviously bitter on this point as my ex took half my pension (most built up before I even met her) and this is despite her opting out of every work pension scheme she could’ve been part of. A classic case of “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine”.

In most cases pensions should be exempt. The trouble is the law paints a picture of little wife at home making cakes and raising children, no chance to generate a pension while hubby is at work for a bank earning hundreds of thousands and squirrelling every penny in to a pension. In that case sure, include it, but that's perhaps 1% of cases. Probably not even that. More often it's a couple both of whom work and ones sensibly saved and the other has squandered the money they could have saved, or a man who's supported a wife to effectively sit at home doing nothing for the entirety of the marriage, I've seen this multiple times, infact I was with someone who clearly wanted this lifestyle and left before getting trapped, it's the worst deal any man can get, you meet this good looking girl/woman, move in together, she manages the situation so she doesn't work, you work your arse off to support her, she's bored while you do that, cheats on you, leaves with half of everything. Generally when you find men who are very bitter over divorce that's the pattern they experienced. 50/50 divorces should be a thing, but they should take in to account more factors than they do, and one of those should be the effort put in to the marriage by both partners, a freeloader (of either sex) should not continue to get a free ticket to a life of luxury just because they said I do.

Absolutely

[TownIdiot]

Surely if the marriage is long enough to result in a 50/50 asset split including pre marital assets it's really difficult to argue that one partner was a freeloader?

[Chris Peacock]

Moving out was a big mistake. She'll very much consider it her house now, but I doubt moving back in will be a realistic option at this stage.

[chip*]

Moving out is irrelevant.
If it was the matrimonial home, both get a slice of the pie

One positive sign = adult kids i.e. she can't play the system to support or increase any maintenance claim as the kids are grown up and can look after themselves!!

[milesgiles]

Muzzer79 said:

An ex-colleague of mine got divorced in his late 40s

Paid off house (c. £400k)
Pension (c. £500k)
Cash in the bank (c. £250k)

And they had two kids, both in early teens.

He struck a deal where all the assets, including the above, were split 50/50.

What really annoyed his now-ex-wife was that he also moved for (and demonstrated it was practical to have) 50/50 custody of the kids, so he didn't have to pay child maintenance (she assumed that she'd get it regardless)

OK, he was annoyed about writing a cheque for the thick end of half a million quid for her 50% share, but it was objectively the right thing to do and he got a clean break.

Good legal representation is key to getting a decent settlement, if you have to go legal.

Doesn’t sound right. Why wouldn’t she get child support ?

[Muzzer79]

milesgiles said:

Muzzer79 said:

An ex-colleague of mine got divorced in his late 40s

Paid off house (c. £400k)
Pension (c. £500k)
Cash in the bank (c. £250k)

And they had two kids, both in early teens.

He struck a deal where all the assets, including the above, were split 50/50.

What really annoyed his now-ex-wife was that he also moved for (and demonstrated it was practical to have) 50/50 custody of the kids, so he didn't have to pay child maintenance (she assumed that she'd get it regardless)

OK, he was annoyed about writing a cheque for the thick end of half a million quid for her 50% share, but it was objectively the right thing to do and he got a clean break.

Good legal representation is key to getting a decent settlement, if you have to go legal.

Doesn’t sound right. Why wouldn’t she get child support ?

Why would she?

Custody of the children was split 50/50. She pays for her 50%, he pays for his 50%.

[Help78]

milesgiles said:

Muzzer79 said:

An ex-colleague of mine got divorced in his late 40s

Paid off house (c. £400k)
Pension (c. £500k)
Cash in the bank (c. £250k)

And they had two kids, both in early teens.

He struck a deal where all the assets, including the above, were split 50/50.

What really annoyed his now-ex-wife was that he also moved for (and demonstrated it was practical to have) 50/50 custody of the kids, so he didn't have to pay child maintenance (she assumed that she'd get it regardless)

OK, he was annoyed about writing a cheque for the thick end of half a million quid for her 50% share, but it was objectively the right thing to do and he got a clean break.

Good legal representation is key to getting a decent settlement, if you have to go legal.

Doesn’t sound right. Why wouldn’t she get child support ?

When custody is split 50/50 then neither party has to pay child maintenance as its calculated based on how many nights the child stays with one parent over the other. If 50/50 then its expected that each parent is responsible for the costs of the child whilst in their care.