I want half in the divorce. Am I likely to get it.

He bought the 200k flat before you came along, you've then only been married a short time - 6 years, he put the 200k down as a deposit, you paid 50/50 on bills and have no children, you earn more. I can't see why you would take half. Granted he shouldn't have done 50/50 ownership, that was a mistake. I so hope you don't take 50/50, you'll be doing well if you give him his 200k back and then take half of what's left in the house, you are benefitting from the increase in value so effectively taking some of his profit. It isn't his job to help house you when you don't have any children, your marriage hasn't impacted your short term or long term earnings.

You definitely don't automatically get 50/50 on divorce, my brother was married 14 years (together 17 from aged 20) no children and their split was 35/65 to my brother. She did get her mitts on some of his pension though. Such a short marriage I wouldn't fancy your chances.

Fairly sure this is a reverse and there will be more to this than we are hearing from the OP.

This is so ridiculously entitled, it reads like a reverse!

Of course you shouldn’t get half of what he put down as a deposit. That’s his money. Have some dignity.

I don’t want my sons to get married in future and lose half their wealth.

Greedy and entitled.

The 9 years cohabiting before marriage will lengthen the relationship taken into account not just the 6 years of marriage.
So here it becomes less clear. For the flat he had did you pay towards the mortgage and bills etc? For how long? This may not be as clear cut as this is his money from the deposit built up before they met.
He saved whilst you spent your ‘savings’ however depending on what the court will take into account as length of the whole relationship these savings before marriage could be counted as marital assents.
Usually any money built up during the marriage will be split equally and anything before the marriage will be each parties assets. However the younger age of the op and the longer earning and mortgage capacity could actually reduce this from 50/50 if the marital assets aren’t enough for the other party to adequately be housed and live.
There are many factors which will decide the settlement but do not assume 50/50 on every asset at all. You need proper advice and also to familiarise yourself with the matrimonial clauses act as well relevant as case law. You may find the offer of 50K is fair.

How much is left on the mortgage? The 200k is his so you should get half of any equity since you bought the house. Is that less or more than 50k?

See a solicitor or get an opinion from a barrister. No one on the internet can tell you what's likely to happen from the small amount of information you've provided. You've also been given loads of terrible, contradictory and inaccurate advice in this post. It's not going to actually get you anywhere.

Morally I dont think taking half is right based on what you describe.

Unless your were contributing when you were in his flat ...?
And If you werent contributing for the decade or whatever what were you doing with your assets? You talk his ISA? Where on earth is yours. I had one since 18...

You need a lawyer if you want full half.
I'd personally negotiate on the 50k offer.

If a house is 475k you can get a flat for 200k...
100k or so should see you fine.
I'd rather break now and be buying this summer than dicking about for 3 years.

I think he's being reasonable to want the £200k from the sale of his flat back before any other splits. He contributed more to the joint marital assets. You are younger and a higher earner and there are no kids that have harmed your earning potential so should be able to support yourself.

As there are no dependants, you take out what you put in. Don’t be so greedy. You chose to leave.

I don't think it's right, given what you say about your spending habits during your life together, but my understanding of divorce law is that in England and Wales, it will count as a long marriage and the starting point is 50/50 of everything in the pot (inheritance can be held separately sometimes, but you haven't mentioned one). He's older than you, though, and earns less so that 50/50 starting point would probably tip a bit in his favour. It sounds like that will be more than he's offering you, so it's probably worth you spending a bit on a solicitor and making sure he does to, and then coming to a negotiated agreement where you settle for a little less than what you solicitor thinks you can get in order to avoid legal fees eating even more.

One thing you may not have to continue doing, though, is paying your half of the mortgage if you've moved out. If he can't or won't pay the whole thing then keep doing it so you don't default but, as I understand it, courts consider the half mortgage payment a fair exchange for his exclusive use of the house and wouldn't penalize you for not paying. So ask your lawyer if you can do that. Don't leave him in a position where he can't afford to live, though. It jeopardizes your credit rating, the investment in the house, and will make him be more confrontational in the divorce, ratcheting up the legal costs.

Ignore everyone. You need legal advice. Marital assets come from a place of 50:50 as a starting point. A marital asset is anything aquired during the course of the marriage which includes your house. Unless you have an existing contract to say otherwise, how it was bought doesn't matter. So it's 50:50. Then you look at needs for fair housing. This isn't housing that you would aspire to have, but housing that meets your needs. You don't have kids so that would mean closeness to work, mortgage aspirations etc. His age will come into it as he may have to get a shorter mortgage. I got a 17 year mortgage on a 70 grand deposit after my split but I do have a very good job. I was 48. Your best bet is to enter into mediation. You do have to pay (I think it's £1000) but no solicitors and you shod get it sorted out as you get advice. Try not to let fear guide you too much. Look into mortgages and you may be surprised at what you can get.

Are you serious? If so you’re totally taking the piss. You want to be free and enjoy your new life, great for you. Why on earth should he fund that to the tune of 100k+?! How would you feel in his position?

He's upset as he's not going to get a decent mortgage at his age
That's the only factor that could mean he gets more. There is no longer his or hers, everything are assets of the marriage regardless of what each brought into it.

However, the main consideration will be your individual needs going forward, accommodation being the primary one.

If he can evidence that he can't get/afford a reasonable mortgage on 50% (and that it reasonable to assume he can't work more hours, earn more), but you more than can do, then he could have a case to ask for more than his half.

Well there you go. You liked clothes, he liked savings, so you both got what you wanted. He isn't looking for half your clothes, is he? So savings are off the book.

Re wanting half the 200k, he's offered 25%. You want 50%. How do you support that arguement? We're you paying half the flat mortgage for a number of years?

You each have a pension. His is bigger as he added more to it.

Re paying rent - unless you can evidence he was dangerous then you could have stayed living there so your extra rent was also a choice.

This was a 6-year marriage with no children. The £200k house deposit is clearly non-matrimonial property, coming from the sale of a flat he owned before the marriage. Courts will ring-fence pre-marital assets unless there’s a compelling reason not to and “I want half” isn’t one.

You chose to leave, moved out while he was away, and you earn more than him. He wanted to work things out. You’re also younger and will be working longer. There’s no financial dependency here.

Paying half the mortgage during the marriage does not entitle you to half of a £200k pre-marital deposit.

As for savings, the ISA, and his pension: assets accrued during the marriage may be considered, but fairness does not automatically mean a 50/50 split particularly where one party is older, has fewer earning years left, and more limited mortgage options. Any pension built up before the marriage would also generally be treated as non-matrimonial and protected.

Realistically, you’d be wise to follow your solicitor’s advice and accept what’s being offered. Otherwise, you risk spending more on legal fees only to walk away with less.

Courts divide matrimonial assets fairly, not equally, and not on the basis of one party’s sense of entitlement where the facts clearly don’t justify it. Expect fairness, not a jackpot.

She says they split the costs, even though he was the lower earner.

Witham short marriage like yours with no children you won't get 50%of everything especially as your the higher earner and have an extra 10 years to earn before retirement.
I'd suggest that you forget any idea of getting anything near to 50%of everything. The house maybe but certainly not his pension, however he may get some of yours especially if you go after his £200000 deposit

No. The reason why so many men don't want to get married is because it's much cheaper to use a female as:

A vessel to incubate your children
Unpaid childcare
Unpaid domestic labour

and then leave them, or better still, kick them out of your home, go (ostensibly) 50:50 child custody and then fail to actually do your half of childcare or paying for food, clothes, equipment and activities.

That is a way more likely scenario than the one in the OP. Men like to use the rare example of the "gold digger" as an excuse to exploit their female partner and avoid paying for their offspring.

This is a sad situation for the MIL if she raises a piece of crap like this who shirks family responsibility and thinks he's Mr Big Bollox because he has a car with a spoiler and a fake Gucci belt. When they split up and the female is inevitably left with the offspring, MIL will see less and less of her grandchildren.

Don't raise Andrew Tate wanabees.

But why should you walk out of this able to buy somewhere and him unable to do so when (i) the £200k was his money, (ii) you are the higher earner and (iii) he is older than you so in a more vulnerable position in terms of future ability to buy a home.

Does £50k represent half the equity once you take out the £200k? If so then take it. If it is less take more.

If he'd forced you out the house to rent elsewhere then that could be accounted for but it doesn't seem like that was the case - it was your choice to move out (rather than e.g. take a different bedroom in the house you own while saving) so why should he pay for that?

£50k would be higher than 10% deposit on any house under £500k. Or you can rent a while and build up some savings for a higher deposit, or buy somewhere cheaper. It's 25% of a £200k property.

What a vile attitude you have, OP.

I think you need to post in legal not on AIBU.

It's relevant that you've been together 15 years not just 6.

It's also relevant that you lived together in the flat he owned because you could have contributed to the costs and increase in value of that flat. (a lawyer will tell you).

While he saved and you spent, did he benefit from your spending? Were you taking him out for meals and on holidays while he saved? If that's the case, the courts may look at this differently.

I really think you need legal advice. (fwiw I think you're unlikely to get half).

Can you demonstrate with receipts that you put in all the daily living expenses and holidays therefore allowing him to save? I mean even if you can, and you spent an extra 20k a year more than him... that's still not 200k. But there might be recognition of who paid for things along the way.

50k sounds reasonable to me. You do need to agree the finances with your ex husband to be ideally either yourselves or with a mediator (this costs money) - both parties need to come out with a fair deal.

One thing the mediator said to me during mine which really stuck was ' there will be hardship here, you can't maintain the same standard of living, it will take time to get back on your feet'. Taking this to court would be extreme and costly.

I had significant equity (16 years worth) in my house before I married my ex. We were married for 15 years, and he got 47.5%. The only reason it wasn't 50/50 was because my ex had significant savings, so he got a little less and kept his savings. Pensions were broadly similar, so were disregarded.

The judge described this as "a marriage of moderate length". If a 15 year marriage is regarded as "moderate", I suspect that a 6 year marriage would be regarded as short and that OP's husband may get to keep more than half, if he can demonstrate that he came to the marriage with significant savings.