I am currently at a complete loss on something I thought would be black and white.
My CETV is 450k. I lived with my wife from 1999, married in 2006, separated in 2011. She has no pension. I am 50 and she is 34.
My solicitor says it is classed as a short marriage so not considered. Hers says include the period of cohabitation and you are entitled to half for the 13 years you were together. The mediator says a recent football case is the precedent for lumping together the 13 years.
Quite simply if my solicitor is wrong I lose all the equity in my house to my wife and I might as well agree now.
How can solicitors be so far apart in their thinking with the same facts ?
Yes we have made offers . I said would only have 30% of equity and no claim and she said 0% equity and no claim. Sol says 45% is best case on equity and that 40% is achievable. Sol says marriage length rules out the pension coming into play.
Bear in mind that a share of a pension in future us not the same as cash now. If she had a share if the pension, she would not benefit until retirement. She may well want to trade it - it is called offsetting - for a smaller amount of cash now.
However, talking about pensions in isolation is not helpful if there are other assets of the marriage. If there are children, that will also make a difference. The financial settlement on divorce is about needs first. If you can tell us a bit more about your situation, we can advise more effectively. We need to know: incomes, children - ages and arrangements for them, value of FMH, mortgage on FMH. Savings, debts as well as the information already supplied.
My income is £67k and hers is £20k which looks a massive gap. Problem is I transfer £7k a year to her. She lives with an accountant and I live with a part time shop assistant. So overall our net incomes may net off .
My two children 6 and 7 live with their mum and my partner has two children 14 and 17. In order to accommodate my children one night a week we have jus had to move to a 4 bed room house .
The FMH value is probably £186 with £136 mortgage. Ex now pays that , impossible to ascertain how much the accountant contributes.
Think about it, why would your solicitor say one thing and hers another, its simple really they both want whats best for their client.
Rather unhelpfully there is no definition of what constitutes a short marriage even judges don`t agree, its fair to say yours would be considered medium length, that said when you have children the length of the marriage is much less important.
Its all about needs, you have a fixed amount of assets and income, how best can that be used for the benefit of the family post divorce.
Take note of what Had has to say she knows her stuff.
What is worth noting is a pension share to a lady her age is of no use for many many years so courts are far from keen unless other assets are very sparse, some judges wont even entertain pension shares when the recipient is her age, maybe think along the lines of giving her the house and maybe maintenance for a shortish time to meet any need she has.
How long has she lived with the accountant?, my accountant charges about the same as a solicitor, i would think she earns around 40k, they don`t live on bread and water shall we say, what tends to be important is how long they have lived together, if its a short time its of little relevance, it may not last, the longer they live together the more relevant it is.