AIBU in wanting the end of the meal ticket for life in this particular instance (or in finishing off all the DC's mini sugared doughnuts)?

[Artemisia48]

I find myself writing this post in the middle of the night because I cannot sleep and I am hoping that some MN's feedback will bring me some moral support -and writing this post will help me back to sleep -that and the doughnuts plus the large glass of Chardo no no no cup of organic herbal tea. Please bear with me if you can as I am gathering all the facts. I divorced the father of my 2 teenage sons 5 years ago very amicably no court involved and we have a great relationship, co parenting together. I am happily remarried with someone who also has 2 teenage children but went through a very bitter divorce court case. His ex doesn't work, is 8 years younger than us, got a very generous settlement (keeping the whole house mortgage free estimated at 1.8 mil.plus a lump sum so circa 2mil and a personal yearly maintenance until she is 65). Not mentioning children's maintenance because this is just normal. It left my DH quite worse off. At the time she was the RP looking after their 2 children (14 & 16) living next to their school in Kent whereas we are based in London; suffice to say, her attitude was always less than amicable and she never facilitated the children' visits. This year 2 things happened: In January my DH's son (16) chose to come and live with us, and in June his DD just left to go to Canada (Uni). We sold our previous property (which I loved) in January to move to another house closer to transport to facilitate my DH' s son's commute and had to take quite a large mortgage as we needed space for the 3 children who live with us for now most of the time. My ex husband and I both contribute equally to a joint budget for our sons but no one is giving the other any maintenance. I am about to start a new job after 3 years of free lancing because we need to pay off the mortgage and my eldest will start Uni next year. And the last straw came today, I have just learned that my DH's ex has now taken up golf and some unpaid local volunteering to fill up her days. My jaws just hit the floor... Surely now is the time for her to self fund whichever lifestyle she has chosen with the assets she was given and stop rely/ weigh on us? We work full time, look after our children and are happy to provide for them, moved house to accommodate the change of circumstances and still pay her the equivalent of a considerable salary (pre tax = my last full time salary approx £50.000). Surely this defies any kind of logic? Aer we still in the 50s or in 2016? In real terms she has become a millionaire when she got divorced and all she needs to do if she doesn't want to work is sell her 5.000 ft house, buy another (still very nice) one and live off her money?? AIBU in finding this meal ticket totally unfair in our circumstances? (Insert angry face). Thanks in advance for your replies.

But who is ever fair and objective when starting a thread about something that directly affects them? Surely at some point you have to assume some of the basic things the OP is saying to be true, unless there are actually contradictions or they seem crazily unlikely to be true. Otherwise we'd never get anywhere trying to discuss anything on mumsnet, we'd all just be second guessing what OPs say all the time.

Well i didnt post to feel the love but I didn't post to feel the hate either, just to get some opinions on something I feel isn't right. If that makes me biased form the start then I don't understand the AIBU principle.

• Heidi thanks for yr post.
• mixelty, very true.
• Cabrinha to answer yr comments: my DH feels absolutely the same. He dies want to ask the Court for a revision of their order. And no it's not him only paying this maintenance, it is us both. Because we have joint finances, share everything including mortgage responsibility and I do contribute to this budget myself. This is a big outcome in our monthly budget - £2.500 net is not a small amount excuse me. We didn't rush into anything, met some 6 years ago but weren't free at the time, only got together later. I wouldn't elaborate on this because if I told the truth about my DH's ex wife's attitude I would be hung, quartered, eviscerated.

-fluffy you haven't even once listened to me I good faith. My diamond shoes?? Really? Is it not the other way round? For the record since you think some facts are missing, the marital pot consisted of a house (unmortgaged & valued 1.8mil), a savings account (400.000) and a pension. She got the whole house to include the pension' share (she didn't want the house to be sold, wanted to keep it that was her choice), and half the savings. Plus a maintenance until 65 which is what I am posting about. my DH and I both used our own properties (or share of ) to rehouse ourselves as 2 out of the 4 children lived with us and the other 2 would come and stay at times. And now 3 out of 4 since January so we needed another room, had to sell the previous property in central London (upkeep also was too expensive, a lot of maintenance). We now live off our salaries, period and we both pay for our children (schools, studies) which is normal. I am starting a new job to put more money on the table and take more pressure off my DH who has always been working like a dog and isn't going to carry on with the same level of intensity/ pressure (he is 56) . He would like to find another less high flying position for the last phase of his career which is perfectly acceptable. So yes, I repeat the question: AIBU to want to put an end to a spousal maintenance which isn't justified / logical, following very outdated laws?

Artemis I think it should be revisited - that is a ridiculous amount to be paying out to support an ex who has substantial assets and no children to support.

for some women being a SAHM is not a 'sacrifice' but a lifestyle choice

I disagree strongly with this. Yes, for some women it's a lifestyle choice. But for the majority, even when making this choice freely, the choice comes with a sacrifice. Most women who stay at home with the children will lose not only their current level of earnings, obviously, but also the chance of promotion and progression, even those who are 'just a PA' may well have moved up the ladder at some point if they had stayed at work.

Even if women (or men) who become SAHPs return to work after, say, 15 years, and spend some time retraining, they will still be 15 years behind where they could have been, assuming they can even get a job at their previous level after a working gap.

AIBU to want to put an end to a spousal maintenance which isn't justified / logical, following very outdated laws?

Its difficult to tell in your case if continuing spousal maintenance is justified or not, as we only have your side of the story. However, I think it's fair to assume that with the exW at home, your DH was able to progress his career far more than he would have been able to otherwise. And I think we would have to assume that it seemed fair at the time it was court ordered.

I certainly don't think spousal maintenance is outdated. I think it's wonderful that the value of the role that a SAHP puts into a family is recognised in court, it certainly doesn't seem to have much value to many people these days.

As always, the devil is in the detail.

She was awarded 50% of the assets, including the value of the pension. She didn't take any of the actual pension via PSO, instead she took more of the house equity - which is a very common thing for a SAHP to do.

So, 50% of the assets was £2m.

Then, she also got spousal until she's 65. Your husband is 56 and she's 8 years younger, and the divorce was 2 years ago. So she was 46 - that's 19 years of spousal. The £50K pa that people have repeated as fact isn't the actual sum - it's £2500pm (I think the £50K was a approximation of pre tax earnings for her to get that herself)

£2500pm for 19 years is £570K. Nice.

But if you added that to the £4m asset split now, what you get is 62.5%. She just gets 12.5% of hers delayed over time. Which means it's actually worth less, with inflation.

It sounds crazy that a woman fully able to work should get a paid up house and a salary - doesn't it?

But does it sound crazy that a 46yo gets 62.5% of assets, after excluding her husband's family money and inheritance (which is not a given) and no pension?

Suddenly, it doesn't sound so crazy that she got 62.5% of not even the full pot.

As your husband kept the full pension, can I suggest that he now stops paying so much into his pension, so that you don't have to prop up the house move to accommodate his child?

How can she get spousal maintenance after his retiral date?

There is also the option of capitalising the spousal maintenance which would mean you DH paying a further lump sum to his ex. You may want to explore this with his lawyer before cutting off his nose to spite his face.

-Primal you are correct I made a mistake it's until HE reaches retirement age

• Cabrinha, as above its only until HE is 65 so approx.270.000 . As it were today both ex H/W have the same value of assets in the form of property, except that hers is mortgage free as it will be form her pension and we have a mortgage because we have had to purchase another bigger property and we pay that back with our salaries. We also pay for everything for the children, there is no contribution on her side. If she wants more she can work again (she has no more children at home), re marry, manager her assets differently (sell the house, invest in other properties, rent one out, etc there are many possibilities); she is very privileged and hasn't exactly had a hard life.
• finally Budgie, I fail to understand how our generation can be trapped into the "career sacrificing" to be a SAHP? Apart from some specific situations, all it takes is to set up a good family organisation between the two parents and some external help and both parents can have a career. This is what I have always done (with au pairs ) and the majority of my friends too. No one needs to sacrifice themselves for the greater good these days really. We can fulfill both our private and professional objectives, not in an ideal, fairy tale way but in a very acceptable, realistic way.

Thank you all for posting anyway .

It seems odd to me. What would happen if your husband lost his job and was unable to work again? Would the ex wife still be entitled to these payments?

No one needs to sacrifice themselves for the greater good these days really

It may be true that not many NEED to, but still, many do. Many people still do consider it important for one parent to be at home with the children, especially when they are young. I accept it's a choice for many ( or for some on lower incomes, it's a necessity when you consider the high cost of childcare), but never the less, the choice comes with a sacrifice. Most choices in life do, especially when it comes to the work/life/children balance.

Right, so based on your correction that the SM is payable until he is 65, not her, what she actually was awarded was 57% of the marital assets, excluding his ring fenced inheritance and due to inflation, the 7% that comes from SM is actually worth less.

So again, it comes down to the detail and how you interpret it.

Would I pissed off at finding £2500 a month for a woman who doesn't work and is sitting it a big old house she could sell? Well, yes I would.

Would I think a 57% settlement excluding inheritance after a marriage of 18+ years where the wife was a SAHP and had spent at least 5 years abroad to support the husband unfair? No I wouldn't.

If you both don't like the monthly payments, why not use the inheritance to buy her out of that with a lump sum?

The total settlement of 57% really isn't unfair.

I'm a working (single) mother. I think kids are just fine with two working parents, if the childcare cover is managed well with good people.

But honestly... Why wouldn't many people want a SAHP?
I may get flamed for this - but you know what? I think a SAHP is better.
If I was wealthy and my partner had a low paying job that we didn't need the money from (you say she was a PA) then - as long as they were happy - I would rather have my partner at home. Right up to teen years. You often see people on here comment that they need you more as teens.
There was a value to her being a SAHP, and that is why she was awarded 57%.

I do understand that in a specific example, someone might be a lazy cow who spends the money on heroin instead of the kids

But... Divorce settlements are not value judgements. And I really don't think you can argue that 57% is excessive.

I return to my original post... I think it's far more a concern that you are upset and not sleeping and moving home and changing your job... all for your husband!

All of this (IMO fair) settlement was in place 2 years ago. Before you got together. It is your husband who is causing the current situation - not his ex wife.

And some thoughts on her choosing the house over the pension and being "over housed":

Firstly, it's a fair choice whatever her reasoning - if you agree that 57% isn't excessive, she just chose bricks and mortar over shares. But these are decisions that I'm closely acquainted with:

Me: I let my XH keep the huge family home, even though it meant I will have to wait 9 years for £100K of my money (not money from any theoretical equal share - we paid everything 50/50). Why? Because I didn't want my child to go through two new homes at the same time. Also, XH had put a lot of work into the property himself - and even though he was a cheating arsehole, I could see he was more attached the house than me. My first boyfriend after the split didn't understand - he could only see it as "why is he in a 4 bed 4 reception 2 bathroom detached house with a 100m garden when you're in a 3 bed semi without even a separate loo?"

My best friend: fought hard for a Mesher order to stay in the house. XH still complaining 10 years on - and 5 years since she bought him out. From the outside, he kept botching about "woman gets the house". From her side, she didn't like the house that much but took on a crippling mortgage because she was desperate to keep her kids in their home, best friends living either side, and stability during the trauma of divorce.

There are many reasons to stay in the FMH, and referring to being over housed doesn't really reflect the complexity.