Hi, asking for a colleague who is being driven to distraction by the process
H= husband(my colleague) W= wife
H 53 yrs
3 grown up children, one at University, older two left home and working
Youngest lives with H when at home
27yrs married, 2 years prior cohab, she moved out 12m ago
Your respective incomes;
H net monthly £5800
W net monthly £2700
Your respective outgoings; FMH sale agreed.
W in rented accom alone.
H will rent 3 bed initially for himself+youngest, in FMH currently paying all costs
Your assets -
House will realise £567,000 equity at sale next month
Combined pensions CETV £1,300,000(H £1,150,000, W £150,000)
liabilities - nil except H will fund youngest thru Uni at £10,000 pa for next 3 years and house when not at Uni etc(subsistence, car, car insurance...)
Any other factors, such as one person having limited earning capacity due to ill-health or a long career-break, etc.
W is about to inherit £35,000 imminently
H has proposed 50% split of all marital assets, but he will pay for cost of divorce process and be responsible for ongoing maintenance of youngest
wife will have £283,500 (+ £35,000 inheritance) and £2,700 income, with no responsibilities
This will buy a really decent 3 bed house outright in the local area
also 50% split pensions so W gets CETV of £630,000 + whatever she contributes going forwards
H considers that as needs are met by this, 50% is fair in the circumstances.
but W is arguing for 60% of house(and 50% everything else) without demonstrating need
Is my colleague going to have to accept that 50% is not fair, and if so what is the argument for W having more?
he cannot understand why when needs met, he is being asked for more
he understands if there was less to go around, his higher earning/ borrowing capacity would be relevant and that he should give more to the wife as she earns less, and needs a house.
But, both could be housed with an equal split. So why the pressure for more?
Genuine question not answered by his extensive internet research.
Extrapolating from the judgements in high value cases at High Court not especially helpful
Argument will probably be along the lines of the fact H is earning over twice as much as W so will be able to contribute far more to pension and build up a much bigger pot, afford a bigger mortgage etc and she would have expected to benefit from that money and the standard of living it would support if they hadn't divorced.
They should work out how much it is and then decide how much time, money and energy they're prepared to spend arguing about it or negotiate a different figure.