Divorce settlement sense check

[april wrath]

Hi everyone, I was wondering if I could pick your brains about the suggested financial split.

As background, cohabiting 10.5 years, married for 6.5 years, with a 9 year old and a 6 year old. Divorce instigated due to growing apart.

Assets husband:
- Pension: 300,000
- ltd cash reserves: 220,000
- Bitcoin: 80,000
- Cars: 40,000
- Other investments/savings: 20,000
- Share of property after inheritance: 20,000
- Share of marital home equity: 140,000
Total: 820,000

Assets wife:
- Pension: 250,000
- Savings: 56,000
- Investments: 56,000
- Share of marital home equity: 140,000
- Debt (credit card stoozing): -30,000
Total: 472,000

Initial offer by wife is 50-50 on assets and child arrangements. The cleanest way is for wife to get full house equity (she can afford to take over remaining mortgage amount) and leave everything else in individual names to avoid triggering tax implications by selling/moving assets.

Is this offer reasonable? Wife will end up with 612,000 and husband with 680,000 so I suppose there needs to be at least some further adjustment to make it more equal. I don't know if it matters but husband is contractor so employment is a bit uncertain in the future, and wife has stable full-time employment and has always worked during cohabitation/marriage (apart from when on maternity leave).

How would the asset split be impact if mother ended up having children almost 100% of the time due to father relocating far away due to work?

Thanks in advance!!

[Opapayer]

Seriously? You’re asking a male dominated forum a question as important as this and expecting a sensible set of replies? My advice if you’re unsure would be to ask a professional ie a divorce solicitor and pay them for a few hours expertise. All you’ll get here is bitter twisted divorced middle aged men having a rant, calling the wife names, ignoring how important the kids should be in any settlement and giving really bad “advice” on how to keep every penny.

I realise that will come across as cynical but search some of the other divorce / separation threads and you’ll see how vindictive and nasty it can get.

[Raj28]

Amicable divorce split 50/50 down the middle?

Thank your lucky stars, take it, and run.

I say that as someone who also had an amicable experience btw but it seems to be rare.

[Panamax]

april wrath said:

leave everything else in individual names to avoid triggering tax implications by .... moving assets.

There are no CGT implications moving stuff between husband and wife.

To my eye it looks a little curious to have assets (investments) and liabilities (mortgage) at the same time. To some extent it comes down to what the mortgage interest rate may be, what investment returns you're getting (don't forget you need to look at those net after tax) and what your marginal tax rates are.

[Sheets Tabuer]

I'd say 50-50 is fair especially if she is offering 50-50 on the kids, not sure why you'd want to move away, if it was me I'd buy a house half a mile away so my kids could move between houses easily and keep the same friends and activities.

[cashmax]

Sounds like you are doing the most crucial thing, which is to keep divorce lawyers out of it.

[borcy]

I wouldn't think of it as husband/wife assets as a starting point.
There's family assets to be split up.

Start with what's best for the kids, then split up the assets 50-50.

Then look will that provide each party somewhere to live.

[Mr Overheads]

Husband needs the extra £68000 to set up a new home if he's the one moving out.

[CMTMB]

Opapayer said:

ignoring how important the kids should be in any settlement and giving really bad advice on how to keep every penny.

You must be reading a different forum, I've never seen that.

[april wrath]

borcy said:

I wouldn't think of it as husband/wife assets as a starting point.
There's family assets to be split up.

Start with what's best for the kids, then split up the assets 50-50.

Then look will that provide each party somewhere to live.

Quite right, I guess I have put them under husband and wife to show who's name is on what and what needs to be transferred. In my opinion it's joint assets, but in the other person's opinion they would have to "give" me their money I think that with a 50-50 split everyone can afford somewhere to live, but of course both parties would be worse off since they have to maintain similar lifestyle on one salary. My only concern is if husband needs to have more easily accessible cash for a deposit since he would be moving out.

[april wrath]

Panamax said:

There are no CGT implications moving stuff between husband and wife.

To my eye it looks a little curious to have assets (investments) and liabilities (mortgage) at the same time. To some extent it comes down to what the mortgage interest rate may be, what investment returns you're getting (don't forget you need to look at those net after tax) and what your marginal tax rates are.

Mortgage interest is quite low, and we both have increased our assets significantly via investments the last few years. We also appreciate having easy access to funds in case we need them. I would say there is a balance

[borcy]

april wrath said:

borcy said:

I wouldn't think of it as husband/wife assets as a starting point.
There's family assets to be split up.

Start with what's best for the kids, then split up the assets 50-50.

Then look will that provide each party somewhere to live.

Quite right, I guess I have put them under husband and wife to show who's name is on what and what needs to be transferred. In my opinion it's joint assets, but in the other person's opinion they would have to "give" me their money I think that with a 50-50 split everyone can afford somewhere to live, but of course both parties would be worse off since they have to maintain similar lifestyle on one salary. My only concern is if husband needs to have more easily accessible cash for a deposit since he would be moving out.

I think that's common as I'm guessing your husband earned the most.

Yes you've got one family split over 2 households so your lifestyles will drop.


Where's the significant differences in what you want?

[bimsb6]

Keep it amicable! But why does your ex have 30k of debt and cash savings ?

[worsy]

Thankyou for introducing me to the term Stoozing

[Jamescrs]

I'd say if you can agree 50-50 on the basis laid out in the original post then do that and use lawyers to simply draw up the paperwork.
It seems fair in my limited knowledge but what I do know for sure is if the arguments start and solicitors start trying to get one side to fight for more any gains will quickly turn into losses in legal fees.

[Monkeylegend]

bimsb6 said:

Keep it amicable! But why does your ex have 30k of debt and cash savings ?

You are assuming it is the husband who is posting.

Maybe OP could clarify because their last but one post could be read as it is the wife who is posting.

[april wrath]

Answering a lot of the questions in one go.

Yes, against forum norm, I am the wife. Divorce is not instigated by me, so on the face of it all, I think I am being way more reasonable and rational than most people would be. I thought he would bite my hand for a 50-50 offer, but it turns out he thinks I am taking him to the cleaners. In his eyes, we should each keep whatever is in our names (including keeping the mortgage in joint names), get divorced, but keep living together "for the sake of our family". Does this sound attractive to you?!

Regarding how we grew apart, well, that's not difficult to happen when one party is a workaholic who would prefer working than participating in family life, including holidays, meal times, sleeping schedules, etc. I am guilty of not showing enough affection, but to be honest I am completely knackered from a demanding job and everything else on my shoulders. There is 0 appreciation or understanding of how much I am doing and absolutely no chance of getting any support when I say I am drowning. In my eyes a marriage is a partnership, and in our case, I am only feeling like a housemaid, personal assistant, and "punch" bag when things don't go well. I am really sorry, but I have no capacity to also play the role of a sexy kitten.

He has said and done too much and I want out, that's why I am keen to remain amicable, not involve lawyers, and not waste any of our kids' future inheritance. I can afford a good life for me and the kids, whether we have 50-50 arrangement or I am their sole caregiver. Me being the sole caregiver came as a threat from him because he won't be able to afford staying nearby if he "gives" me any of "his" money. To me, that sounds like bliss. I am doing 95% of whatever needs to be done for the kids and around the house anyway. HOWEVER, the kids need to see and have a relationship with their father; so, unlike most other women, I wouldn't care less about child maintenance as long as it meant that he would be nearby. Unfortunately though, he seems to have swallowed a red pill and sees me as an enemy who wants to destroy him financially...

So yeah, that's it from my end. I just wanted to hear some unbiased opinions and you have all provided valuable insights. I think I need to see how else we can ensure he can "afford" to stay around, even if it means selling the house and buying our own separate properties. Thanks!

[PovertyPrince]

april wrath said:

Hi everyone, I was wondering if I could pick your brains about the suggested financial split.

As background, cohabiting 10.5 years, married for 6.5 years, with a 9 year old and a 6 year old. Divorce instigated due to growing apart.

Assets husband:
- Pension: 300,000
- ltd cash reserves: 220,000
- Bitcoin: 80,000
- Cars: 40,000
- Other investments/savings: 20,000
- Share of property after inheritance: 20,000
- Share of marital home equity: 140,000
Total: 820,000

Assets wife:
- Pension: 250,000
- Savings: 56,000
- Investments: 56,000
- Share of marital home equity: 140,000
- Debt (credit card stoozing): -30,000
Total: 472,000

Initial offer by wife is 50-50 on assets and child arrangements. The cleanest way is for wife to get full house equity (she can afford to take over remaining mortgage amount) and leave everything else in individual names to avoid triggering tax implications by selling/moving assets.

Is this offer reasonable? Wife will end up with 612,000 and husband with 680,000 so I suppose there needs to be at least some further adjustment to make it more equal. I don't know if it matters but husband is contractor so employment is a bit uncertain in the future, and wife has stable full-time employment and has always worked during cohabitation/marriage (apart from when on maternity leave).

How would the asset split be impact if mother ended up having children almost 100% of the time due to father relocating far away due to work?

Thanks in advance!!

I don’t doubt it’s not legally correct, but I personally wouldn’t consider the limited company funds an asset unless you own half of it. That’s technically not his money either.

I see it as pensions being roughly equal, investments are mostly within the same ballpark and house equity is also roughly equal.

The argument is on the company funds really, without that the obvious answer is you sell the house, split down the middle and keep everything else individually.

[borcy]

april wrath said:

Answering a lot of the questions in one go.

Yes, against forum norm, I am the wife. Divorce is not instigated by me, so on the face of it all, I think I am being way more reasonable and rational than most people would be. I thought he would bite my hand for a 50-50 offer, but it turns out he thinks I am taking him to the cleaners. In his eyes, we should each keep whatever is in our names (including keeping the mortgage in joint names), get divorced, but keep living together "for the sake of our family". Does this sound attractive to you?!

I wouldn't put it in terms of being attractive or otherwise. More its just not practical if you're divorced.

I don't think your husband has come to terms with what divorce looks like. For some people it's time to be able to see that, others a friend/family, for some a neutral professional.

Edited by borcy on Friday 5th December 12:58

[Collectingbrass]

Divorce is a long game when children are involved. The settlement may seem inequitable (it's a lot more equitable than mine was though) but if it means that he and you are full members of your kids lives and that they grow up to have healthy and wholesome relationships with you both that will be worth any amount of cash or asset transfer. You can always get more cash once it goes, you can't get more love from your kids once it starts to go.