Would love to her other''s views please.
Older wife younger husband divorced after 22 years of marriage.
One child in full time education for another year unless university becomes a reality (which she would like to) so in full time education until 2018 possibly. She''s 17 and lives with me. She doesn''t spend any time with her father save the odd lunch now and again.
He earns considerably more than me. My monthly net income is almost exactly a third of his. £1,280 per month. His around £3,200. I work full time, as does he. I have just 5 working years left he has 20 I would think. His pension pot is just over 10 times the size of mine. (his £210,000 mine £28,000).
He lives with a new (much younger) partner who has two children from her previous relationship. He claims he needs to pay reduced
child maintenance because he helps his partner with her children, which seemingly he is allowed to do and nothing I can do about that. This is despite the fact that the children''s father is a high earner and paying a lot of child maintenance and having them 3 nights each week.
We jointly own the
marital home which my daughter and I remain in. I have paid all bills and mortgage entirely myself (with help from lodgers) since he moved out just over two years ago which I think is fair considering I''m living here and could just about afford with a little inventive financing! I have never asked for anything apart from child maintenance.
He says he has started court proceedings to reach financial settlement. This was said in a letter from his Sols in May this year but I''ve heard nothing from the court as to timetable yet.
I have prepared
form E and have it lodged with my solicitor. He has informed them that my form E is ready if he wished to prepare his. He suggested that we could use the information on form E to re-open negotiations about a month ago. As yet no response so clearly they would rather take it to court.
mediation failed earlier on this year. Two reasons. On arriving there, he still had not prepared any financial information and changed what he considered to be his pension pot but refused to provide any written proof by way of
CETV etc. Just sat there expecting to negotiate on his word entirely.
Plus the mediator said "why on earth do you think it should be anything other than 50/50. Just go to court, because I''m telling you that''s what you''ll get and you can waste your money on a lawyer telling you you''ll get more - that''s what solicitor''s do. They tell you what you want to hear so you''ll keep giving them your money".
I kid you not that is what the mediator said. He also took phone calls and sent text messages on his mobile while ex and I were talking at the table so I got up and left saying I was not prepared to pay £260 an hour to someone that wasn''t even listening to the clients. Ex took that as the opportunity to say that mediation had failed and court was the only answer.
He has stated that he expects (wants) a straight 50/50 split across the board of both assets (house equity and joint pensions). He is aware that if that is the case I will be unable to house myself as I don''t have enough income to be able rent and no ability to mortgage due to factors of age and low income. He claims that our daughter being almost 18 should be taken out of the equation altogether as she is no longer considered a dependent.
Our mortgage is due to be finished in 7 years time. Once finished in 7 years time there would be enough to buy me a house mortgage free after an interest only part of the mortgage is paid off. However, he claims he wants a larger part of the house equity to enable him to buy his new partner and him a house and I have a larger amount of the pension pot. He is suggesting this because he knows that I can cash in the of the pension being over 55. This is not an option for him. However I''ve said that I don''t want to do that because I would end up paying over 30% tax on the amount cashed in. In other words, in reality a pension pot of £100,000 would only realise me about £65,000 towards the purchase of a house.
Before anyone looks at this little lot and thinks blimey what''s her problem, I have to explain. The area I work and live in and would need to live in (so I could afford to travel to work) a one bed unit would cost in the region of £190,000 and two bed Absolute minimum £280,000. I consider I need two bedrooms because my daughter still lives with me and will continue to need a home until she''s managed to secure a job and set up home herself. Not an unreasonable request I would say.
On today''s property prices I''m looking at coming out of this with around £150,000 in cash and a very slim chance of a mortgage of around £50,000 which would cost me more in repayments than our current mortgage. Still not enough to buy a house.
To rent around here I''m looking at a minimum of £1,000 per month and with an income of just £1,400 per month I am
absolutely sure I won''t be able to rent.
I could of course rent and not buy and use the equity up by paying in advance each year (I would have to do that as my salary does not match up to the renting criteria) that would mean the equity would have been used up by the age of 70 if I were to pay the going rate for a two bed property around here. That would then leave me needing either social housing at the age of 70 or homelessness I fear as I would have retired by then with just the minimum state pension and a very small pension amount in the region of £200 per month. I would have, of course used up the pension pot from him paying rental for 10 years.
The
Divorce Calculator on here says 70/30 split with daughter keyed into the equation and 60/40 if I take her out of the equation altogether. However, he is sticking to his guns saying he needs to purchase a larger house to enable him, his new partner and the children to be housed and therefore requires a larger amount of cash from the house.
I can remain in the house (for now) as we secured an obscenely low mortgage rate (0.49% above Bank of England base throughout the term of the mortgage which sits at .99% at the moment). So even if I were able to secure a mortgage at the moment (which I very much doubt) it will be
a: much smaller than current mortgage and
b: cost possibly double what the current mortgage costs each month in repayments.
Conversely ex is renting a largish house at a rate which is almost three times the mortgage repayments on our house. He and his partner clearly earn enough to cover the rent on this large house. If they didn''t they would not have secured it after financial checks as it has been rented through an agent.
His partner works full time also. She is also only in her mid 30s so many, many years working life left and many years of pension contributions to make. They are planning to marry next year.
Does this look like a 50/50 split? I''m working on the premise that our needs are for a two bed house and that a greater share of the equity and the pension should be awarded to me on the basis of lack of income, lack of ability to increase income. Lack of opportunity to build up pension pot. Lack of time earning a salary anyway.
Ideally I would like to have a larger percentage of the house and a smaller percentage of the pension. I am happy to trade those two against each other arriving at around 60/40 split across the board of both assets. He however wants equal share of both. Split the house and the pensions. It is my preference to leave him with the pensions in his name and me keep mine but me have 80-90% of the equity in the house.
His suggestion would result in large costs implications. The cost of transferring pension amounts. The cost of selling etc. The cost of me buying also. The large tax bill (circa £36,000) I would face if I cashed in all of his part of the pension pot to buy or give myself enough cash to rent up front for 10 years.
Am I being unrealistic in going down the route of not just lying down and accepting his insistence that I am entitled to 50% of everything and nothing more?
If anyone has had the patience to read this little lot I would be most grateful to hear the views of likely outcome through the courts.
