Now I aint saying she's a golddigger...

[FeelingGoodAsHelll]

Hello all

My title is exactly how I am being made to feel right now.

Me and my husband are currently separating - we aren't legally separated just yet - we need to agree on minute of agreement which will be issued hopefully soon - his solicitor is drawing them up.

We bought out house 2 years before getting married. My STBXH paid the deposit (around 25k). I had just finished uni at that point and was in a trainee role.. so my salary was peanuts for a while. His parents gifted £5k to US (no paperwork, nothing) a few years back and paid towards some of our wedding too. Again, it was to US, no paperwork.

My STBXH, as he earns x4 my salary, decided to overpay the mortgage every month, as he could afford to, and wanted to reduce our mortgage quickly etc. I didnt overpay as I had a lower salary and couldnt afford to. The mortgage / bill split was probably 70/30 (me paying 30, I didnt decide this split, he put everyhthing into a spreadsheet which worked out what we should both pay, his idea).

We verbally made an agreement that I could keep something (I wont say what as it will be very outing) if I dont touch his pension & savings account. He also wanted me to give back his deposit, which I intially agreed but house prices are high so I said no that I wanted the house split 50/50 as per title deeds. He agreed. He then came over a few days ago and told me that he wanted me to agree to not touch anything in his personal bank account (I said I wouldnt, why would I?!). He then said that he wanted x, y, z item from the house added to this "list". I started to get annoyed as this list is getting bigger and bigger and all I wanted was one thing.

Anyway, he said he would buy me out, and pay me half the house, he told me the figure he could afford. Home report came back below this figure (by quite a bit). He now tells me he can't afford it, despite telling me the bank has agreed to lend him the money. He then asked if I would decrease my share. I asked by how much. He then said he wanted all overpayments, his deposit, and all monetary gifts his mum and dad deducted from my share. I told him that we should just sell the house if he can't afford to buy me out, he is reluctant to do this.

I Told him he was taking the piss and that he wont be happy until I walk away with nothing. He profoundly apologised, said he would move money around to get the funds (So he can afford it). I then picked a solicitor who told me that my verbal agreement was rubbish and that she wanted to see all bank accounts, savings, pensions to see what I am legally entitled to. I disagreed but she was quite adamant. I gave my STBXH the heads up about this to which he said, "if you or your solicitor ask any questions, or try and take my pension or savings, the fighting gloves will come on and mud will be thrown... youll walk away with a lot less than 50%, you'll regret it".

In the meantime, he keeps telling me to put offers on properties so I can move out asap but I can't as I don't know what my deposit will be. He keeps telling me to get a mortgage in principle, which I have but they are really low as I am putting down the worst case scenario, i.e. if I do end up with nothing. He told me that he won't give me my share of the money until I give my keys back to him (if he buys me out). I offered to move into my dads, so I can get this money and move on, but asked if I could keep bigger furniture in our house (my dads house is tiny) until I move in my own house, he said no, once I move out, I cant come back. I feel like he is pressuring me. My solicitor said he is bullying me and I should call bluff on the thing he has promised that I can have if I dont touch x, y, z.

I only want 50/50 split on house and the promised thing. However, I feel he is being unfair and pressuring me.

AIBU??

This split was mutal!!

I wouldn't feel guilty about expecting half. Even though you've only been married for 5 years, you've been together for 15. It was a long term romantic relationship where you mingled your decisions and assets. Can't stand people trying to unpick that later and pretend like a woman is worthless unless she had a man's children and sacrificed her career to raise them. You gave him your love for 15 years and now he wants to calculate it's only worth 30% of his. Gross.

I'm going to try and strip this back from the emotions.

The gifts towards the wedding, etc, I don't think are reasonable to be included.

Gifts towards the reduction of the mortgage, I'd be more inclined to include them as your STBExH's contribution.

If the house is 50:50 per the legal documents, then you're within your right to expect that. Personally, however, if I had paid significantly less than my husband towards the house I don't think I'd expect to get half of the equity.

I'd expect to get back what I'd paid in, plus an equal proportion of the equity in the property.

50:50 could potentially lead to the ex actually ending up worse off.

Let's use an example where the property is sold:

• Property value = £500,000
• Mortgage outstanding = £250,000 (equity in the house therefore = £250,000)
• Deposit paid by H = £50,000
• Deposit paid by W = £nil
• Mortgage contributions paid by H = £100,000
• Mortgage contributions paid by W = £50,000

Based on a 50:50 split of the property, H would get £125,000 from the sale of the house (50% of the equity), but he has already paid £150,000 towards the property. He therefore is making a "loss" of £25,000.

W would get £125,000 also, but has only contributed £50,000 towards the property, so is making a "profit" of £75,000.

To me, that doesn't seem fair.

Conversely, based on the above, the total payments towards the house by each party are H £150,000 (75%) W £50,000 (25%).

With the £250,000 equity being split 75:25, H gets £187,500 and W £62,500, less what they've each paid in leaves £37,500 to H and £12,500 to W.

None of the above would apply in a scenario where one party or the other had sacrificed a career to bring up children, but in this case that doesn't apply.

re the dog, who's name is he under at the vets and do they know you there?

The law that applies is the marriage act

There are 10 or so criteria the courts must use to determine “fair settlement” is reached - doesn’t matter if it’s a consent order or financial order, the courts have to do this.

”fair settlement” does not implicitly take into account the past. It looks forward. The criteria are based on ensuring children are provided for, that both parties have a roof over their heads they can afford, that parties future financial security is provided for where possible in terms of equally secure, and where possible the future lifestyle of both parties is maintained as is as much as possible. There’s provision in there for disabilities, other dependants, future earning potential. There is also some provision for fairness if assets bought into the marriage were very uneven and the marriage/relationship was very short - but you’re talking about 1-2 year length marriage. A couple like this with over a decade together and a 5 year marriage, it won’t be considered a short marriage. critically , the fair settlement criteria clearly spells out that it doesn’t matter what you contributed financially - a marriage is considered a joint social endeavour and coming out of it divides assets based on future needs primarily (e.g. the main breadwinner doesn’t get more - they are supported to be main breadwinner by the other partner socially)

yes, if there is surplus assets after “fair settlement” is achieved, then one party may get somewhere with a non 50:50 split based on contribution, but the fair settlement always comes first.

There is a misunderstanding that most divorce courts split assets 50:50 as default. It often is, but that’s how fair settlement works out for a lot t of people. The50:50 is the ownership of assets in marriage - the marriage act assumes 50:50 ownership of all assets, no matter whose name they’re in form the day the marriage is made legal. Whether at divorce they are split exactly 50:50 will depend first on fair settlement criteria and just how much money there is.

remember, the marriage act is written by governments. They want to protect tax revenue from picking up the tab of one partner being left improvised by divorce whilst the other is gaining most of the matrimonial assets- this has been the case since 1870 under the married women rights bill, and then again in 2000 when pensions were included as matrimonial assets with introduction of pension sharing orders.

All that being said, I agree he sounds very squirrelly about his bank account, etc, which makes me think he's got a lot more than he's saying. He knows what the law says you're entitled to.

Stop playing nice. Let your solicitor do her job.

Find out how much is in all personal accounts and pension pot, then decide.

You will be well pissed off if you find that he has won the lottery and he has millions stashed away or his pension pot is 1 million.

You are getting divorced. He is not there to help you. Find out the amounts and then decide if what you want is "fair ".

Thanks for that detailed response @Newlifestartingatlast . I think my marriage is OK. 🤞 But I'd definitely be thinking seriously about marriage and whether it would be right for me if I were younger. With a quick marriage on the death bed for inheritence tax reasons. 😄

Getting married is about being a team. You should be entitled to 50% of everything you built up during the marriage.

What about housework etc etc. Did you support him with his career? It's not just about earnings.

He sounds like a nasty piece of work.

Support him with what? Pat his back? 😂😂😂

Your entitled to half that means you get half. Listen to your solicitor. Do what they say. The minimum you should get is half the house worth

your ideas of fairness are not supported in law. No matter how fair you may think it. The law is there to serve the benefit of society and the government overall and that means making provision for both parties so they don’t end up relying on the state now or in the future
in divorce it is almost always the case that BOTH parties will be worse off - of course the husband will be worse off..so will his wife. There isn’t any way to avoid that no matter how much money there is 🤦‍♀️

just read the marriage act and how “fair settlement” actually works in law. It is not based on what any of us think, or any solicitors interpretation. It would be a pretty bad law if it was open to interpretation. How you meet fair settlement can be arrived at many different ways but this is a legal requirement that has to be met by court whether divorcing parties agree or not. Courts quite often question further or even reject sealing consent orders because they don’t meet fair settlement criteria

Don't forget pensions are worth way more than most people think!

No one is saying a woman is “worthless”. They’re saying a woman, like any man, is “worth” what they put in. If you think OP’s “love” is worth a lot of money then she should get on and sell it to someone who knows that they’re paying for it. Her ex sounds naive - I don’t think he knew he was supposed to be buying her love.

Come on! We all know most women do loads more than men round the house etc. If OP had a housekeeper, may she could have earned more.

Look people, she is not automatically entitled to half. She may be.
the marriage act is based on “fair settlement” criteria first. Sometimes one party may get more than the other due to that. Often it is 50:50 but not necessarily

please just go away and read the marriage act and understand those 10 or so criteria that have to be met first.

The confusion arises because people don’t understand this and the difference that all assets are jointly weed in a marriage no matter what, whose name or when they acquired them. There is assumed a 50:50 ownership in effect during the marriage.

The op needs, in law, to get her financial declaration done as does her husband. At that point they need to look at “fair settlement” criteria and meet those first. If there is surplus they can then negotiate who gets what based normally on 50:50 , or whatever the parties decide agreeably or through mediation.

The OPs husband is playing the age of game of trying to avoid financial declaration by trying to buy his wife out. She must not do this. Agree to nothing before the form E and D81 is completed and signed. Both parties cannot make their agreement legal without these forms and without the D81 going to the court anyway.

Wow. YABU. Morally, so wrong. You really are a gold digger. He and his family put in all the money and now you want to walk away with 50%. Disgusting.

There are more ways to support a household than just financially, children or not.

I don't think you are being a gold digger OP, it sounds like he's being snide and sneaky.

Given that the only chore OP has mentioned was done by him, I don’t think it’s fair to assume he doesn’t contribute at home.

We both met at university.
He was studying a masters in a very good field.
I work in a good field but what I can earn is limited - I didnt chose this career to earn big bucks. I earn enough to get by and I love it.
I expressed concerns when we looked at houses at he kept looking at 5 bedroom houses, and his parents pushed for us to get a bigger house too - they were even registered to estate agents and would forwarded houses to us.
I said I wanted to buy a smaller property, for the time being as my salary was only £16k. His was £50k. He said he wanted a bigger house. He said he would work out a fair split with salary / wages. Which he did, he created a spreadsheet and worked it out. He said the house was ours and his money was house money.
My salary has doubled since then and so has his - so I didnt seek out someone rich or want to take him for a ride. He was a poor student when we met.

Also, I havent mentioned any chores.
Dog aside, I done most housework as he went out Saturday and Sunday mornings (sometimes whole days) with his hobby. He was also expected to work overtime for a 6 week block each year, I cooked all his meals, looked after our dog, hardly saw him. I looked after our house. I could sit and write out all chores but that isnt relevant.
a few years ago, I wanted to change careers - well go back to my university field, as there was more career progression and it is what I always wanted to do. It meant taking a drop in salary. I spoke to him about this and he said he would support me all the way. I still paid my fair share but didnt have as much disposable cash. I might have asked him to pay for my car to repair during this time, which I paid him back. But I still lived off my wage once everything was paid out. I am not a freeloader.

oh come on. Op has benefitted from her dh higher earnings throughout the relationship. It was a short marriage and both should leave with what they put into it. I don’t see any reason why it’s unfair for op to get a load of her dh assets. He earned them and I totally get why he would be angry at losing them.

He paid the deposit alone, majority of the mortgage … why should you get half the house?
also, his parents gave him those gifts.. if you weren’t married there’s no way they would have just randomly given you money like that..
do you think you are entitled to half because u got married? You have no kids etc .. was there some sort of career sacrifice you had to make for this marriage and that’s why you think you should get something you didn’t earn?

Sorry but I can’t see how you should even be entitled to 50% of the house. You have no children, he has earned more than you and saved more than you. Even if the law gives you 50% I think that’s unfair on him. Why are you on here if you’re convinced you’re right? You can either make an agreement with him or if that’s not possible because you can’t agree on what’s fair (which seems to be the case), you go the legal route and let that play out. It doesn’t really matter what people on mumsnet think. And people will think you’re a gold digger for trying to profit from a marriage in which you had no kids and made no career sacrifices. I’d be raging if my husband and I had no kids, he earned and saved less and made off with a chunk of my pension. Embarrassing.

Because the law isn’t there to encourage or discourage marriage. The marriage act around divorce is protecting the government from picking up the tab for that irresponsible man.

yes, marriage is useful and needed for certain next of kin type things. Like inheritance, death, lack of mental competency. It’s vital to recognise that cow,en hpwho take the financial penalty for having kids are recognised at divorce as an equal partner, so Vital if you have kids, or will have kids .

but in your example, nope not a lot of point to marriage. As another poster suggested, maybe marry quick once you are old to benefit form Iht law 🤷🏼‍♀️🤣.

I divorced in late 50s after 30 years of marriage. I would neither marry, or jointly own a house ever again no matter how much in love I was. I have 2 kids and it’d be a pig to deal with inheritance, or LPOA etc. I already became worse off after divorce - that was a fair settlement but we both ended up worse off, I’ve no intention of exposing myself to that at my age , but others might want to marry- each to their own. But I’d still get married if I was in my 20/30s and starting out with raising a family- I’d be stupid not to.

Direct all communication through the solicitors No point in trying to be amicable
Legally it's a short marriage
Instruct your solicitor to seek full financial disclosure when form E is issued
His pension and savings will be declared at that point and you can then decide along with your solicitor what is best for you
Remember every solicitors letter to negotiate with ex costs too
The legal owner of the dog is who the dog is Microchipped to, but obviously your wishes for dog will be taken into account
Good luck.. my divorce took 4 years!