Does 50-50 exist

This is an old post but still one of interest if you think court maybe the only option.

Have been mooching about a bit lately, and I have noticed on the forum many posts about how a lot of peeps are unhappy that they have been advised that their stbx will receive more than 50% of the assets of the marriage....so I thought I would clarify this little fallacy:

50:50 does not exist!!!!!!!!!!

In my 9 years of practice I have never seen it ordered. In my partner''s 10 years of practice he had never seen it ordered....you will struggle to find a lawyer who has.

Even in White and White, the now infamous case that gave us the concept of the "yardstick of equality" and hence 50:50 division, it didn''t happen.

What does happen is the court considers all the circumstances of the case, giving first consideration to the welfare of any children of the family under the age of 18. The court has regard to the following matters:

(a) The income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each spouse has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future including, in the case of earning capacity, any increase in that capacity which it would be, in the opinion of the court, reasonable to expect a person to take steps to acquire.
(b) The financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each spouse has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future.
(c) The standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage.
(d) The ages of each spouse and the duration of the marriage.
(e) Any physical or mental disability of each spouse.
(f) The contributions which each spouse has made or is likely to make in the foreseeable future to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family.
(g) The conduct of each spouse, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the Court be inequitable to disregard.
(h) The value to each spouse of any benefit which one spouse because of the divorce will lose the chance of acquiring (most usually pension provision).

No one of those factors is more important than the other - everything is chucked into the scales and a judge attempts to decide what is "fair" ­base­d on the circumstances of your case. What is "fair" is a very wooly concept, and in every case there is a large band of possible outcomes. As long as a judge is somewhere in the band, it is deemed to be fair.

Hopefully this goes someway to helping some of you, particularly the peeps who post to say that they are sticking to 50:50 and not shifting - sadly, all that can lead to is a long and very expensive battle.

I believe where the assets are such that they are above the basic needs of both parties the split is more likely to be closer to 50/50. In a needs case however much less likely!

Yes, thats right there is no law assets are split 50:50 or at least it''s an oversimplification. 50:50 is the "yardstick" to measure divorce settlements against in the final analysis to check for equality but equality is about leaving both parties on a similar footing to start independent lives rather than a mathematical 50:50 split.

50:50 only applies when there are enough assets to meet the needs of both parties and there was no exceptional contribution from one party (White v White.) When there aren''t enough assets to meet the needs of the parties we refer back to the s25 Matrimonial Causes 1973 checklist and usually the needs of the parties is at the top or near the top of the list.

Hi,

Not sure if this case is different ?

My, now husband,had the following Court Order made in 2012:

50% of his pension - military,, already in payment.

50% of his pension he currently pays into - this was 50% of the pension for the years they were married - actually equated to approx 33% of the whole pension.

Before the court order, they sold the FMH and had 50% of the profit each.

My huband still works - ex has never worked.

No SM or anything else.

Does this mean he was a rare 50:50 case ????

Before you can answer the question does 50:50 exist, you need to answer the question what does 50:50 mean, which is a harder problem and also what degree of precision you want to go to.

LB

There is a common misconception that once you are married for a fair while the division is just half each, chuck the pensions together chop them in half and half the equity.

As others have said this is more likely if assets exceed basic needs, even then we are not talking 50:50 only half each of what is left after basic needs such as housing.

Lostboys question is interesting and not one i have seen asked before, usually you take out personal items and household goods and then look at liquid assets, so cash shares equity ect,in fact anything that can be traded in for cash, usually the other main asset is pensions which are not liquid but often very important and valuable.

I suppose the aim of posting DL''s old post was to try and help people to understand its not about 50:50 or 60:40 it is in fact for most people about who needs what after considering the usual factors.

Hi
just found this and now I am feeling more miserable than ever. My solicitor keeps telling me 50/50 and smiles (divorced for 14 months now)
We still live under the same roof and life is unbearable. Looking at the previous posts I feel like chucking in the towel but it would quite possible kill me in doing so. our daughter is 16 1/2 and wants to live with her dad, there is an age gap of 17years and he is now 69 and claiming all benefits and pension. i work p/t and earn the same as job seekers. I want a fair 50/50 as i feel it would put us both on an equal footing with regards to future housing. I just dont know what to do for the best and the bills are getting larger.
Help what should I do for the best.
JMK