To want more in a final settlement from ex

[Nosocksevermatchup]

We have split up, sold the house and we will get half each.

I want more than half as my ex has three other houses,vehicle he owns outright, a business and a pension which I am not entitled to as we weren't married. All of these were bought while we were together with 'his' money. This is one of the main reasons we split
He says I'm not entitled to any more than this as I received some inheritance when my mum recently died, this equates to less than the value one of his houses.
I know by law I'm not entitled to any more as we were never married.
Am I being unreasonable to ask? He has always been financially controlling. Or should I just walk away?

Me2016. I am also in a peer group of very high earners. However, i am more aware that we are in an incredibly privileged position that certainly does not extrapolate across society.

By far the majority of financially vulnerable people are women, whose rights are directly affected by the new norm of cohabiting and reproducing. That's why i believe it needs looking at.

I'd not like to see a change in law either, it devalues marriage. What we need to do is get away from the theory that men work and women don't. We educate both sexes so should be encouraging both to do as well as possible and not give up their financial independence or career.

People need to be free to live with anyone they like without joining themselves financially. A boyfriend or girlfriend should never have to worry about living with a partner for fear their assets would be stripped from then in the event of a split.

If my son or daughter was a high earner then I would be ensuring they protected themselves. There are very few jobs that require a spouse or partner not to work, usually high profile people. It's usually a want or desire to work part time or not at all and usually the woman.

Everyone has a choice, marriage, children, living together etc. Likewise contraception is free and multiple methods so no reason to have a child unless the person wants one. Adult choices come with consequences.

Do you know the impact of your talks though? TBH parents are a greater influence on kids than a 20 min talk in schools, and the kids in that class who have parents who aren't married, and where the women is a low or non earner, are probably the least likely to benefit from it.
It's commendable that you're doing that babybarrister, but as a teacher of over 25 years experience I know it isn't as simple as telling a young person the facts

The sex talk in schools takes about 20 minutes yet we still have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the world.

Children learn by example more than by school talks, so if dad worked and mum didn't they are likely to repeat that, the same as if no working parent they see that as the norm.

Without it being the norm for both sexes to work and finance themselves this will always happen. Showing children the person that needs to support them is them not another adult or the government is the way to go but many simply won't as work is not for them.

If schools started teaching the financial pitfalls of cohabitation with no legal protection, there would be plenty of people kicking off. Especially those who live together, not married but currently happy it would be perceived as trashing their way of life.

I do think parents need to take this lead on this. There have been talks about underage sex and teenage pregnancy and stds for years. People still don't listen, think it won't happen to them. And it does.

I talk to my kids about it. Not all the time but when anything related comes up we do. Ds is 5 and says he isn't ever getting married and living with us forever so it's not something I do too much with him. But dd is 12, it's something we (dh and i) really feel is important for her to be aware of.

I really don't think one chat from someone coming into school is enough.

I certainly don't want the law to change to an education of women moving in without a wedding ring on their fingers remains the only option. I suppose we could issue when people move into someone else's house and the council tax records are changed a draft cohabitation agreement and a document setting out rights and responsibilities and a will form so they all think about that.

I often think that a 'Civil marriage' would solve this problems for people who,don't want to be married, but want legal protection of their union.

How is a civil marriage different from going down to a registry office?

Lunch - you're right. It did make me wonder the difference between a civil partnership and a wedding. Turns out civil partnerships can't have a religious element.

www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/weddings-and-civil-partnership-ceremonies

You don't need to have a religious element to a basic registry office marriage. TBH if a couple aren't happy to have a basic registry office legal marriage, I doubt they'd be queuing up to get a civil partnership

(Fwiw I think a civil partnership should be available too, but I don't see this as the fundamental issue. The real issue is people making major life decisions, such as living with someone, procreating with them, often having several children and remaining together for decades, without equipping themselves with accurate information about their rights)

OP - I suspect it isn't worth the heartache or expense as sadly your rights are virtually null as PPs have said.

Get married before children. ( unless you are a massive earner who will continue to work, in which case stay single.)

Wow so Make sure if you have a high earning partner that you make them marry you so you can have half of everything. If you are a high earning woman stay single because fuck men they don't deserve half of your stuff?

I find that utterly disgusting personally.

I would love to see a change in the law to protect ANYONE who cohabits. If it only included assets accrued SINCE the cohabitation I don't see why it would be a problem? Anything you had before should be yours.

That is not the law. The law is if you are married everything including say £3m you have accrused before you got together goes in the pot and is divided and in my case my ex got nearly 60% by the way not 50%. often lower earners who are married get more than 60% (and he always worked full time too so no career sacrifice there).

So it shoudl remain a choice. If the law were changed to even living together means you have to share assets if you split then they just wouldn't be allowed to stay over night which has its advantages actually - no snoring or mess.

He got over 50% because he also wanted maintenance for life and I earned 10x more so he might have got it and I bought that out with the clean break so that makes sense I suppose. It would have been better not to marry but we live and learn as women.

I agree that older people who have had children and divorced and will nto have children with their next partner are probably keener to protect their assets (my ex I remember was after a pre nup for his second marriage which I was keen he had as that would protect the money I gave him hopefully for the benefit of our children together although it was an amusing point that he might get done over by wife 2 on a divorce in the way he did me over on divorce 1; although acutally I hope they are happy forever. I don't wish them any ill will.)

I know people are divided on whwther we need to protect women who just live with a partner but now women under 30 earn more than men and parental leave is shared from last year things are changing and women as much as men may want protection from divorce rights so might instead choose just to live together. To have the right to decide as adults that you either will or will not marry seems fairer to me.

No one is deceiving anyone and a 2 second internet search would tell anyone that the man who wants them to mvoe in but won't marry them who owns a house is probably just trying to protect his assets if they split up and either the woman should get a better job or force the man to give up work not the woman when babies come or else she needs to get man who will marry her rather than just live together. Women are not non earning chattels to be protected these days, Changing the law to give live in lovers marital protection is not that popular in England actually , thankfully.

Agree BabyB and young women may be earning more now ( haven't seen the figures) but how do these salary stats hold up once they have children?