Result of Divorce

Hi All,
provide some feedback as this site helped me during my divorce in finding information and realising i was not alone.

Background: married 26 years; 2 kids. one is 22 years left home and the other just done his last year for A Levels.
House in the price range £600k+. I had £100k savings. She had a DB pension and i had DC pension. The amounts were similiar. Yes i know DB pensions have a higher income.
I have a job which is probabtionary, She does not a job even though all the years we were married she worked. In some case earning more money than me which i didnt have a problem with. She also had hardly any savings. she was a teacher and then decided to change career. I foolishly agreed to support her and help pay the house bills.

So outcome was
1. split the house 53:47 in her favour once we sell . I did this as i had the job and she didnt. I have been paying all the bills and child maintenace
2. Split MY savings 50:50. Mainly in ISA which were going to be part of my pension
3. We both kept our own pensions.
4. Spousal maintenace of £800 per month for a year but with the last four a nominal amount.
5. Reckon i spent £20k+ on solcitor fees

So we had a inital FDA date in April. prior to that our solicitors got together to create a Consent Order. The court date in April got cancelled but we put in the draft order and it got agreed.

So what is my opinion on the outcome and what i have been through
1. A major issue was my ex-wife became a Litergate in Person. that increased the stress.
2. Being accused of abuse in an NMO. Solved that by agreeing to the undertakings in the NMO. After 26 years she felt threatend and in fear for her life. That was painful!!
3. I felt maybe i should have fought for the pension more but the CETV values were close but i do wonder. Did go to an expert who had an intial look and he couldnt find much difference between them.
4. There does come a time when you just want it to end so hence the 47:53 split. she did want 45:55 split so i always tell myself i got a good deal. Ha Ha Ha
5. My ex-wife got the child maintenance people involved. Now i was still living in the house with her and my child(18 years old) I was paying £576 per month to her and paying all the bills. Appealed but the CMS didnt change their ruling. The only good thing was that i only had to pay for six months as my son was doing his final year A Levels. I do wonder actually how much pain CMS adds to the process. The requirement for 25% reduction in salary before they change the maintenance amount is a disgrace!!!

Now for my little rant.
If i was master of the universe i would change the concept of marriage. we have moved on now, and you may think this is a good thing or not, where we are individuals who just happen to come together. We should let that little thing called love fool us too much. As individuals you accept that you have a house which you contribute together, pay the bills look after the kids etc but your money/savings is yours alone. It doesnt get split. Both parties have thoer own accounts. They are both liable for their own debts. So why can I keep my own savings? Oh and i would ruddy change CMS as well!!

take care and just get through to the other side.

M

? So the pot is circa £700k but the real argument was about 5% of it? You spent £20k, she presumably had legal bills too before being LIP?
In the end you 'saved' 2% (£14k) but that's wiped out by the legal fees (and some).

You are fortunate to have settled when you did. The bills could have been so much higher. So many cases like yours have 50:50 or thereabouts written all over them but tens of thousands are spent, to say nothing of the emotional damage, in reaching the point where the judge can decide for you.

I am not having a go at you, it is the adversarial system that makes me cross - and the fact that it is so easy to be suckered in to paying tens of thousands in legal fees for little or no gain. I think everyone planning to divorce should have to do a compulsory crash course in how financial settlement works before they are allowed near a lawyer!!!

Hadenoughnow

I think the solution above in relation to financial settlement starts at the wrong end.

People who intend to get married should be taught what marriage means in a financial sense i.e. that two independent people are agreeing to form one financial unit in which all assets and liabilities are joint.

If that unit is separated, the joint assets and liabilities have to be split according to need, or, if there is enough to meet both needs, to split the pot equally.

If everybody had an idea of the effect marriage has on individual finances, perhaps fewer marriages would take place?

Charles

couldn't agree more with the contributors, if people only knew what they were getting themselves into before they married.....they probably wouldn't....unless of course thier other half is better off, then its a no brainer.
it is utterly unfair that you can be married for 5 years or so & then anything you had ever worked for can get split in half....even if theres no kids & the other half has a descent job etc.
with the latest pag report....it gets worse....if your unlucky enough to get a judge that agrees with the reports findings, your pensions will get split in half, even if you contributed to yours for 25 years before co habiting/marriage....The message needs to get out there, people thinking about getting married don't realise this.....
maybe if its publicized more people will stop getting married & the government will change the laws on divorce, to share stuff accrued in the marriage only, unless there are mitigating circumstances

That's rather misleading. The original post was based upon 26 years marriage with children.

A short marriage without children would qualify as a reason to depart from 50:50 although not guaranteed.

When people get married they agree to join in a homogeneous entity. When the marriage breaks down the danger of hindsight can imbue a party with a false sense of superiority which equates to financial contribution.

One day the parties work as a team and live a joint life and the next day there is a financial audit and a claim to more of the assets and wealth.

As my erstwhile family lawyer partner says "the unified family court doesn't do regret".

Living together agreements, Separation Agreements, pre nuptial agreements, post nuptial agreements - there are ways of drawing lines in the sand but people don't give consideration to these things. They just get married and, romantic though it is, feet first is not always the best option.

Charles

I've seen plenty of evidence on this site to say 5 yrs is considered a long marriage....which is crazy....I doubt anyone in the 'real' world believes that.
in my case its a 10 yr marriage I had all the assets when we met, including the house with a large amount of equity, asset split when we met was 90%/10%, no kids & both working....I've been told to expect a 55%/45% split.....& a pension share....its a travesty of justice....& people are not aware when they get married about this.....it should be taught in schools...
it is quite wrong that a 10 year marriage can effect the finances you built up over 20 years before the marriage.
only finances accrued during the marriage should be shared equally...that is fair
Also bizarre that you go to Scotland & pensions pre marriage are not shared....whether you live in Scotland, Wales or timbucktu....no pensions pre marriage should be shared, in my opinion....they are the individuals private business & should be out of the equation.

You're so right Chevette. It's not just pensions either - my partner is fighting to keep assets he's had since he was a child and I've seen on here people defending business and property assets accrued years before they met their spouse. It's utterly ridiculous. I find the Scottish rules much fairer. Even if they were extended to include cohabitation periods, at least it would exclude everything people had worked for before meeting their spouse or managed to save after separation. The current England rules encourage money grabbers because the system allows people to find a partner with assets, enter the relationship with nothing, divorce after a few years and leave with half (if not more) of everything. Morally wrong, legally right!