Advanced search

DIVORCE - is a 60% / 40% split on financials the norm?

(18 Posts)
KDKDKD Thu 25-Apr-13 22:35:08

Lovely ladies, please, please can you help?

My solicitor has informed me that no judge would ever award more than a 60% split to me, even though?

?I have contributed more than that amount of money into our relationship
?I gave up my corporate career that paid 5 times than my current job so that we could start a family in 2009
?My X doesn?t want to do any of the child care ? sorry he?s happy to take our Son out once a week for half a day !

My X walked out when I found some evidence that he was having an affair, just when i thought that he couldn't crawl any lower... to add further insult he is trying to negotiate down my % as I am pending some money from my late Dad?s will. In his latest email he wanted to clearly state that he wasn?t going after my Dad's money, but indirectly, however you package the words he is! Sorry went off on a rant then.

Has anyone else managed to achieve a higher percentage?

Have a hunch that my solicitor isn?t really fighting my cause and keen to get the paper work off her desk.

Deep breath!

OP’s posts: |
Chubfuddler Thu 25-Apr-13 22:40:48

So many questions really

How long were you married?
How old are you?
How old is he?
What is your income?
What is his?
How much are you talking about? Ready cash or pensions etc.
How much is the inheritance - and realistically what would your intentions have been for that money if you had still been married?
What are your employment prospects? Joint plan for you to d ale back career or your wishes?

I don't expect or want you to answer those questions here, but those are all relevant factors. I doubt your solicitor just wants it off her desk tbh, going to full trial is pay dirt. She wants to get you the best deal she can without risk of doing worse at trial. And she doesn't want to be negligent.

Pocketmonster Thu 25-Apr-13 22:41:45

The starting point is 50/50 -blame for the breakdown doesn't come into it.

My mum got 60% but her ex husband lied to the court and was proven to have hidden assets.

I've not seen more than 60%.

KDKDKD Thu 25-Apr-13 22:46:24

Thank you ladies, so a 60% agreement meaning not having to go to trial sounds like it could be a good deal? PS money is mainly in the equity of our two houses

OP’s posts: |
Chubfuddler Thu 25-Apr-13 22:49:11

I would be very surprised to see you get more than 60% unless the marriage was very long (20 years plus) and his earnings were very high and yours virtually nil at mutual instigation or SAHM with hedge fund manager husband.

Chubfuddler Thu 25-Apr-13 22:49:35

That or should be an ie

KDKDKD Thu 25-Apr-13 22:53:50

sorry ie?

OP’s posts: |
STIDW Thu 25-Apr-13 22:55:56

Whereabouts do you live? In England & Wales there are cases where assets have been shared more than 60:40. Every case depends on the specific details and in many cases when there aren't significant resources the assets are split according to the needs of the parties. The priority is the welfare of children and a parent with the majority of care will require a more substantial home for the children but the other parent also requires a home suitable for children to stay for contact. It's all about balance and your solicitor who should have all the information is most likely correct.

If you live in Scotland it's a different ball game and rarely are settlements more than 60:40.

KDKDKD Thu 25-Apr-13 22:59:29

Thank you, we are in Suffolk. Can I ask where you have heard about more than 60:40 pls?

OP’s posts: |
STIDW Fri 26-Apr-13 00:33:53

I know several cases where assets have been shared more than 60:40. For example when the only asset was £20k equity in the former matrimonial home and the parent with the wife needed all the equity to house the children and herself and the husband had a good income and therefore a reasonable mortgage raising capability the assets were shared 100:0 in favour of the wife.

HOwever as I said above each case depends on the specific facts and it isn't possible just to make a comparison with someone else, their circumstances might be completely different. There is no substitute for independent legal advice.

Conduct is rarely considered in divorce settlements and contributions are unlikely to be a factor unless the marriage was short and childless. As time passes who contributed what becomes less relevant and unless there is enough money to meet the needs of both parties assets are shared according to need.

A good starting point is to consider local property prices and both parties mortgage raising capabilities. You require a more substantial house because the children will be living with you but if you are working and can raise something towards a mortgage it may reduce your "need" of a greater share of assets. On the other hand if you have 60% of the assets your husband will have a smaller amount to use as a deposit for a property and he will need a bigger mortgage increasing his monthly payments.

KDKDKD Fri 26-Apr-13 18:47:38

Thank you so much for your feedback, gosh there is so much to consider and at stake. With love x

OP’s posts: |
oldfatandtired1 Sun 28-Apr-13 15:17:51

I met a lady the other day who was awarded 80% of assets. Her husband earned 4x as much as her and the judge ruled it was a 'needs based' case ie she needed 80% to rehouse herself (kids grown up) - her husband could get a mortgage, she couldn't. (I was encouraged to hear her story as it's very similar to mine - my high-earning senior executive stbx thinks he will offer 50% equity, he'll keep all of his 400k pension and will keep his 70k savings as they came from'his' share awards. My solicitor wonders which planet he's living on . . .

kittycat68 Sun 28-Apr-13 19:01:31

hi i got 70 per cent of assets awarded plus parents estate! bou that was because ex had cashed in assets ie pensions and savings then attempted to run up a load of credit cards and took out loans etc after we separated and tried to stick it as family debt. judge was not happy with him!!! he got left with all the debt and 30 percent of what was left of assets.

KDKDKD Sun 28-Apr-13 22:14:11

It's amazing what these guys think they can get away with, expecting us to raise their children whilst they give as little as possible, good luck oldfatandtired1 (i'm sure you are not any of these). It's encouraging to hear kittycat68 that you ended up with 70%... My x has had 3 overseas holidays already this year and claims to have run up debt! With love ladies xx

OP’s posts: |
kittycat68 Tue 30-Apr-13 09:26:43

Holidays your ex has arnt classed as family debt in divorce. However he would most likely be intitilled to half your inheritance.
CSA are a joke to so dont bank on them comming through either.
There are alot of men out there that just want to play at being a dad and dont really give a damm about there children. Especially finacially, sounds like your ex is one of those me me me guys!!!!

oldfatandtired1 Mon 22-Jun-15 20:58:54

I know this is a Zombie thread - but just to say my consent order has just been sealed at court. 90% house equity to me + approx 200k of his pension pot ��. Clean break. I earn 27k per annum, he earns 100k (+ bonus and share options). Kids grown up but long marriage (married in 1989). I'm very happy ��. I can buy a nice house and be mortgage free, he'll have 40k from the house and is looking at a substantial mortgage! Equality does not necessarily mean 50/50!

Goodbetterbest Mon 22-Jun-15 22:01:31

That sounds excellent. I'm after 70:30 as he is a high earner with a massive pension and I earn £8k, no pension.

SpicedGingerTea Tue 23-Jun-15 21:04:08

Hi, I got 60:40. To be honest everyone though I didn't do very well, even my own solicitor (we went to court in the end). He left my when I was pregnant, working part time in a lower scale job (he also left me suddenly with absolutely no warning or chance to prepare myself financially - looking back I wouldn't have been trying for a baby with him if I'd known he'd been having an affair,....).

Anyway, he is a good earner. He is also settled with someone else who has a good income - together they must earn about 100Kish. Documents shown in court proved they enjoy a good lifestyle together.

Judge said this was irrelevant. It was a short marriage, I'm expected to find full time work once my boy starts school in 2 years time. Zero consideration for how I fit this in around school hours, school holidays, sickness etc. My little boy is just 2, so my solicitor argued my earning capacity is lower for the next few years. He has no involvement with our DS at all, has never seen him - all his choice. Again my solicitor tried to argue that this lack of input made things much more difficult for me.

The split was still 60:40 though.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in