Settlement, 50-50 ?

Hello,

I have read some comments on other peoples threads about suggested [ercentages in settlements.I understand that the formula now tends to start at 50 -50? As our assets are quite large my ex tends to think that the split will be based on needs and not 50 - 50?
I thought it was the other way around?
Have been married 10 years , 2 children who will live with me 80 % of the time. My ex wants to remain in the house I want to move elsewhere. Obviously though I will want a similar house to the one he remains in.He seems to think I will only need a small 3 bed one!
Also will he have to pay me maintenance? His comments to me are " how are you going to survive"? I thought with him earning 80K + and me not working that he would have to provide for me or give me a larger % so that I can live off investments and maybe a part time job when the kids are in school full time in a few years

No you should get 70/30 & a shed load of maintenance, you will never need to break a nail in your life, If you do break a nail sue him because its not your fault.

Hi Jay,

Once again you seem to be simply posting sarcastic remarks to my posts, not advice and support which is what I thought this website was all about.
I am asking what the guide lines are in financial settlements, as I have two children to support for the next 18+ years and I need to know how I am supposed to do this. I will return to work when I am able , when the children are settled and when they are old enough not to need dumping into childcare whilst I try and earn money to support them.
My ex has offered me the equivalent of 10 % of our assets, and told me I can live on tax credits , disability living allowance and inheritance from my parents, who by the way are still very fit and healthy. He says that what is his will remain his, and he will give me what he chooses to.
I don't want to screw the man, I am no Heather Mills, but I simply want my children to have a pleasant consistent lifestyle, not live like millionaires sat and sun and paupers mon to fri.
Please do not post if thats all you can do is be saracstic, we are all vulnerable in times like this and turn to websites like this for help and support.

Joanna,
I'm labouring on the other end of your situation.
To me, a 50% asset split, CSA-apportioned CM and suitable SM (say, CM + SM = 33% net earnings) seems fair. Cause of divorce doesn't make any difference.
It's what my solicitor has told me is fair.
In my case, I offered what I thought was fair: 50% of everything (allowing each to get a 3-bed house and a bit of cash), CM according to CSA formula, SM as agreed.
We're divorcing on her unreasonable behaviour (don't ask).
However, my wife wants our 5-bed house (3 kids, 2 of whom share) with all debts paid, 90% of remaining assets, 25% net earnings for CM, broadly similar amount for SM, 50% my pension. Has she earned this? I brought 70% of assets into marriage, rest is house-price growth, she's not worked for 2 years since getting fired and has spent her time wining, dining, shopping and hobbying while I worked to pay the bills. What did I get?: hostility, mental abuse and an evening meal once a week (boys' leftovers).

I say the last bits as my frustration makes me think like Jay sometimes, but as you imply it doesn't help to take it out on others. Don't take anyone's comments personally, most of us are hurting.
Good luck

Hi JLG's Dad.

Oh dear. I do hate these cases where the wife is claiming everything except the shirt on her husband's back.

I think you know that the Court's primary consideration is the welfare of the children, and that means they need a secure home. I can see your point of view, but equally, playing devils advocate for a little, your wife may be able to construct an argument that, although a 5 bedroom house is perhaps larger than strictly necessary, it could perhaps be justified if the kids are, or soon will be, in the throes of O and A levels and therefore don't need an interruption in their education at a critical time. You don't say how old the kids are, so I can't judge.

Even accepting the above argument, I would have thought the worst you could realistically expect is what is known in the trade as a Mesher order, ie she lives there while the children are still dependent, but when they reach 18 the property is sold and the proceeds divided. At this stage it becomes impossible to argue that she needs a five bedroom house. So I would say that her claim for an outright transfer will almost certainly fail. I just have a feeling that a Mesher order is possible, but I would discuss it with your solicitor.

As to the 90% of 'other assets ' - you don't say what they are, However you have a reasonable argument that you need cash to re-house yourself, and that the house needs to be large enough to allow the kids to stay with you overnight. So if you get landed with a Mesher order you can, and I am sure will, argue that
if your wife is to get the right to live in the house for the next eight years or so, you have to be given enough to re-house yourself. You have a need for accommodation, just as your wife has, and the Court must consider it,

I am no expert on pensions and I am, in a perverse sort of way, glad to note that other posters find them difficult. It takes a long time to build up a pension ; looking at it from a common sense point of view, 50% is almost certainly right where a couple divorce after a long marriage and a few years away from retirement. But not after 10 years - well, not in my opinion anyway. But I don't know, and so you must consult your solicitor on that one.

I wouldn't disagree with your solicitor's analysis that SM + CM = 33%. Most posters on this site would say this was about right, give or take 3% either side.

I think your wife's claim is well over the top and, IMHO, a claim of this magnitude is well in excess of what a Court would be likely to award. I could say a lot more, but I've probably said enough as it is. And so to bed, as Samuel Pepys said ( I think it was him )

Mike 100468

Joanna and others,

The problem here is that we are all bitter when we are on the receiving end of bad outcomes.

Although I, as a male favour more on the likes of Jay and others on here who are on the receiving end of, as Mike says "another wife claiming the shirt off the husbands back"

It is not directly aimed at you personally but you appear to be yet another statistic to add to the already high proportion of beneficial women oppose to men in divorce.

I have been on this site more or less since it began and I have noticed the "favourable" replies to women from other women. The "oohs and aahs and thats not right" are everyday occurance and when a male posts a sarcastic or "offensive" post everyone is on the bandwagon that it is unfair. Well believe me, nowadays divorce for a working male is unfair, thats just the way it is.

What is also unfair is the raw deal that "most" men get in divorce...(Fiona no need to post the statistics, I already read them and got the t shirt thanks)

The fact is that we ALL are capable of hurting and cheating and shitting on the other partner regardless of gender, but the bottom line is the PWC (ususally the woman) can use the PWC title to a massive advantage and exploitation of the current legal framework in place for divorcing couples.

Legal aid, mesher orders, higher percentage of assets?

I am the main carer of our son, my wife the main carer of our daughter, but has that got me a mesher order? has it got me out of SM? has it got me a 50% of the assets?

NO

All it has got me is... a greedy ex wife asking for 90% of assets and SM (already pay CM) even though she is cohabiting and working, albeit part time. I have to fight my way to court at great expense just to get near what I should be entitled to and that is the case of so many men on here.

Yet again info is posted about another wife with over the top expectations from the divorce. It's either the fault of the solictor advising or the sheer bloody mindness of the wife that starts all of this and most undoubtedly ends up in court with a judge putting an end to it.

Oh and another thing, post all you like about "remaining amicable" but in reality this in near impossiblilty. It only works if both are prepared to be amicable and/or mediate, but if one isn't prepared to, you could be mother teresa and it would make no difference, you would get nowhere.

Rant over, unneccessary court date still looming