A divorce AIBU

[FluffyMcnuffy]

Couple have been married 12 years (together 15), with two primary aged DC.

Partner 1 put 200k equity into the purchase of marital home, partner 2 put nil in. House now has 300k equity (including original 200k). Partner 1 earns 60k partner 2 earns 35k (both late 40s) and pensions proportional to their earnings.

They have 2 primary aged DC, both work full time, and parent 1 is the primary carer (flexes hours to do some school runs, sick days off etc) and plans to have kids in week with parent 2 having them at weekends.

Parent 1 thinks the divorce should be a clean break with equity split 250k/50k in their favour. No CM to be paid.

Partner 2 thinks equity should be 50/50, with them also getting a portion of partner 2s pension. CM should be paid at standard rate.

Who is BU?

If I were parent 2 I'd worry that I could still be chased for CM. By BIL took a much smaller portion of equity than his exDW when they split (to enable her to buy a home for the children that was in the area they already lived in) and ended up having to pay CM as the CSA didn't take any notice of their private agreement.

Morally partner 1 is right about the equity given that they put so much more into the home in the first place. However, legally I suspect partner 2 is correct.

Given that they are having the dc for 2 days out of 7 of any child maintenance is due I suspect it should be them that pays it - this wasn't clear from your post.

Presuming they have both worked fulltime therefore neither have sacrificed their careers to bring up the kids I would say they should each keep their own pensions.

I am not a lawyer not have I been through a divorce so there will be more informed posters.

The 'they' i refer to in my second paragraph is partner 2

Yes sorry I meant partner 2 pays maintenance to partner 1.

The marital home was 250k when bought so 50k mortgage (mortgage now 30k). All finances were treated jointly during the marriage so partner 2 effectively contributed 10k to the house.

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Partner 2 will be significantly worse off...but then I note that he/she will not be primary carer. Hopefully someone with experience will be along soon.

Partner 2 is being unreasonable. Especially about the equity being 50/50. Failed marriages should never be that profitable.

Personally I think option 1 is morally right as partner 2 will still be getting an extra 40k they could never have had without partner 1.

Legally I think it will be clean break 200/100 in partner 1s favour.

Both parties should decide what they want, and see if they can find any middle ground - perhaps try mediation? Also, they should get legal advice on how the split of assets usually works.

Also, I think Parent 1 may want to consider negotiating some weekends with the DC. Surely it's not fair that they get all the stressy weekdays, and none of the nice relaxed weekends?

I agree, you'd think parent one would at least want some weekends with the children.

Why does parent 2 think they should get half the equity as well as some of parent 1's pension? I think parent 2 is being grabby.

I don't think you can have a "clean break" agreement any more. Csa is always payable to the resident parent until the child is of age. so csa will be payable to partner 1 if they have main care.

I agree with partner 1 on asset division, except csa is still payable.

In my experience of divorce, it will depend on the children's main residence, and whether the rp can afford to buy the nrp out. They will not be forced to sell if they cannot afford a family home with the money- it'll be either arranged for when the children are 18/ remarriage, or the nrp will be awarded what the rp can afford.

It isn't possible to decide based on the information given: For example, does partner 2 want to be NRP or is this being imposed by partner 1? Would partner 2 rather go 50/50 because they want shared custody/alternate weeks for example.
Is partner 2's salary and flexibility less because they took some time off the career ladder to be a full time parent?

The house has gone up 100k in 12 years?

Both AB a bit U

P2 wants to pay CM but P1 doesn't want it? And I can't see the justification for P2 getting a claim on P1's pension, when they have their own pension plus a job paying a good salary.

Re the house, rather than looking at splitting the equity in a % way, surely it makes more sense to reverse engineer it by saying 'P1 can get a mortgage of X, and a suitable house for you plus resident children is Y, so you need (Y-X) as a deposit. And P2 can get a mortgage of A, and a suitable house for you plus non-resident children is B, so you need (B-A) for your deposit.' Anything above this should be split 50/50

100k increase is 3% pa over 12 years so not that unusual

What about the mortgage repayments?

Partner 2 takes the piss.
Partner 1 is quite reasonable.

So parent 2 earns less, put no cash into the house and isn't the primary care giver, but wants half the equity and some the pension?

Yeah they can do one. P2 should be thankful parent 1 is offering them 50% of the equity increase, and not chasing them for child support payments.

I'm with sparechange.

It would be nice if an agreement could be made that will have the littlest negative impact on the children involved (ie one parent struggling in a pokey flat if it's not necessary).

I do think P2 is taking the piss to want a share of P1's pension though.

A good divorce lawyer will see through No 2

Half the equity in place of 12 years worth 51% of pension from partner 1 presuming that partner 2 is female which ever is more

IMO in the event of divorce, both partners should get back what they put in (financially) before the marriage, plus half of all accrued wealth (including pension schemes). My reasoning is that marriage is a partnership, so everything earned during the marriage is jointly owned. This also helps to protect either partner from any financial losses due to (for example) maternity leave or being a SAHP.

CM is a separate issue - it is about continuing to support your children even if they don't live with you. It should be paid by the NRP to the RP at the rate set by CSA.

In this case, assuming the equity was put into the house before the marriage, it would be £250k : £50k in favour of parent 1.
Pension entitlements accrued before the marriage would remain with the person who earned them, any accrued after the marriage would be split 50:50.
Parent 2 would pay CM. I think it would be 15% of earnings (if they have 1 DC - 20% if they have more), multiplied by 5 then divided by 7 as parent 1 would have them 5 out of 7 nights.

Shouldn't it depend on the needs of the children? It sounds like it could be possible to stay in the family home but still provide enough money for partner 2 to have a home suitable for kids to stay in, so is there a need to sell?

Also, have both partners had equal access to work? I was unable to work for several years after an international relocation of dh's work. He has a fucking awesome pension compared to me, and salary. If we divorced I would expect my lack of finances to be redressed as they are a direct result of being his wife.

The OP just doesn't give enough detail to give a clear answer, but I would suggest addressing the needs of the children to have two comfortable and happy homes as the starting point, rather than listing money as a decision maker.

I think by the letter of the law unless the deposit is protected then the house is 50/50 regardless of who paid what deposit. I think this is really one for the solicitors to sort out. But I think child maintenance should be a separate issue from equity in a house. I don't think I'm in favour of a person being able to claim on another person's pension. That should be their own.

No.1 gets the 200k investment back plus half of anything above that. No.2 gets half of anything above the 200k.

No.2 pays CM to No.1 as they are only having dcs two days, however No.1 isnt going to see much of their kids! Just the couple of hours between work finishing and bedtime.

Each persons pension is their own.

Was p1 always the primary carer, or is just planning to be now?

Yeah, I was wondering that. Is Person 2's lower salary in any way a reflection of greater childcare responsibilities, basically?

The reality is usually that the person with primary care of the kids gets more money, if there isn't enough to support 2 homes in the same style as the shared one. But in a longish marriage 50/50 is the starting point, too. Personally I think it's unreasonable for one person to have to pay for most of the children's expenses (CM doesn't touch the sides, let's be honest) and provide most of the grunt work of childcare, while the other makes a huge profit from the marriage. Nor does it seem fair that Person 1 gets none of the quality time with the kids - just sick days, school runs and homework.

I don't see any issue with pension splitting. It's not fair in some situations, and sadly this may well be one, but in plenty more situations pensions are used as tax efficient savings vehicles for family money during marriages, and women take career hits to have main childcare responsibilities. In addition sometimes couples will invest more in a better pension scheme than the other spouse's job offers, intending to share the benefits, because most people these days know pensions can be split after any divorce. Why is it okay for what is often the second largest marital asset after the house to exclusively follow one person, given those factors?

OP this isn't a standard situation, and I think legal advice is even more essential than usual tbh.