Fair settlement?

I am after some advice regarding a financial settlement. We have done voluntary financial disclosure and negotiated through solicitors. We also did one session of mediation. We were close to a deal but he has now changed his mind and court seems to be the only option left.


Facts:

Me - Female, 45 yrs old

Him - Male, 49 years old

Salary: Me - 65k, Him - 38k

One child - 8 years old, current arrangements 50-50 custody, works well

Separated for 2 years, married for 5 years, lived together for 10 years.

I moved out of the family home 2 years ago in rental. Family home is mortgage free, I pay rent (he paid half for 1 year, not anymore).


Assets:

Family home - 1 million

Savings: Me - 58k, Him - 172k

Pensions: Me - 70k, Him - 120k


Housing needs: 2-3 bedroom houses in the area: 600k to 700k


The complications: the family home was bought using a gift from his parents (400k). He is now arguing it was a loan and has a signed loan agreement (this is not genuine, it was signed recently and backdated - he has done the same for his first divorce).

He has a new girlfriend who has moved into the family home and is now pregnant.

He is being made redundant in January 2024.

We were close to a deal: I was asking for 45% of the equity plus 45K to equalise some of the savings. He was offering 45% equity plus 35k. However, he has now changed his mind and offered 43% of the equity and to keep his savings/pension (that would mean he gets 40% of liquid assets and keeps his higher pension).

Court seems to be the only option at the moment. I have a solicitor who has always advised a 50-50 split but appreciates I wanted to keep things amicable. I was happy to compromise and get 45% of liquid assets to account for the fact that he made more of the financial contribution.

Any advice on how this might play out in court? Thanks!

Any financial settlement will be based first on needs and the means you have between you to meet them.
Have you looked at your respective mortgage capacities?
As you are the higher earner it would not be unreasonable for you to have a modest mortgage. This may be a reason for a small departure from equality. It may be you just leave pensions and savings alone and split the house 50:50. That would mean he can rehouse mortgage free. Or split the savings equally and the house 55:45. This really is just slicing different ways. At the end of the day you need to consider how much you are actually arguing about.

Re family loan : As nothing was registered - ie no charge against the property, I suspect the 'loan' would be seen as soft ie a gift / not intended to be repaid. He will in any event have continued access to the funds. If he argued this should be removed from the equation, it is still an asset to which he has recourse to meet his housing need. Your need for funds from the remaining equity would be greater than his. As above the settlement would be based on needs and how they can be met from the available assets.

Hadenoughnow

Thank you for the response.

Yes, we have done the mortgage raising capacities, there was a difference of about 70k between ours (mine was higher).
After mediation we were very close to a deal - he offered 45% equity plus 35k and I wanted 45% equity plus 45k. That would amount to roughly 45% of liquid assets for me. He would get 55% of equity, 55% of savings and keep his higher pension. I was unwilling to compromise further.

Unfortunately he has now changed his mind - presumably because his girlfriend is pregnant and unemployed and he is faced with redundancy. He's back to offering 40% of liquid assets (he wants to have 57% equity, 75% of savings and to keep his pension).

That's what my solicitor said about the 'loan'.

I would be happy with slicing it the way you suggested as well, the issue seems to be that he's now changed his mind and decreased his offer further (a decrease of 55k or 5% of the assets).

That would be my argument as well regarding housing needs: he could buy a house mortgage-free and I would be able to buy a similar one but using a mortgage. This is to acknowledge the discrepancy in income and the contribution from his family.

Sorry - one more thing? How important in the negotiations is his future redundancy?

What he wants and what he needs are two different things!!
If he is made redundant he will presumably receive a pay off? A court would consider his earning capacity unchanged; the view would be that he could, and should, obtain another job on similar pay.