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 accept that it’s usually that way. Hence why the law is biased (against higher earners and towards lower earners). And when one party has made sacrifices then yes it’s not wrong.

it’s just that not every situation contains sacrifices, or imbalances, and a blunt law that punishes the higher (financial) contributor will be unfair at times.

I just see that generally mumsnet threads support the law when a lower earning woman is doing well (regardless of sacrifices) and see that same law as unfair when it “rewards” a lower earning man.

Bullshit.

It's a contraction that first emerged in 18th century Britain.

It spread worldwide, including southern America, & became adopted as dialect by many different ethnicities, eventually becoming strongly associated with e.g. African American English.

Would you like to retract your bizarre assertion now @Ericaequites - or do you prefer to stand by a statement that appears to to denigrate others, including specific ethnicities, as not good company?

"The wife" 😂😂😂

You sweet summer child.
You have no idea how many women out-earn their partners these days.

Of course they do. Posts in AIBU & Relationships tend to be from women who are despairing & looking to understand or escape poor relationships.

Those women are typically undervalued, & doing all or most of the childcare, domestic drudgery & mental load.

When we see a post about a lower earning man or even some SAHD's, we tend to see a pattern of men who are NOT stepping up to the SAHP role, who are NOT pulling their weight at home, & who are taking the piss out of their partner's finances.

That's a societal construct, it skews the balance, & that's why reversing the sexes in these scenarios is usually a false equivalence.

and see that same law as unfair when it “rewards” a lower earning man
because the lower earning man almost always resents his female partners higher salary and attempts to punish her by refusing to step up and do the domestic & child care work

You are married. End of discussion.

He shouldn't have got married if he wanted to protect all his assets.

As I posted upthread my Dsis is going through similar. My STBXBIL was all sweetness and light offering half the house and custody of the dog as long as she gave up everything else.

Turns out he has 5 pensions she didn't know about and he has a collection of classic cars which makes the value of the house look like peanuts!

Stop engaging directly and just maintain contact via your solicitor.

He is purely out for himself at this point, as should you be.

Good luck OP.

@KettrickenSmiled My criticism of ain’t is not on racist grounds. It’s in defense of standard and traditional English verb forms. The elimination of past participles such as wove and dove is another sad example of unreasonable change. For this reason, Of Mice and Men should not be taught in school. Young people should not be exposed to semiliterate language for that long. Exposure in schools should be limited to corrective exercises. Change is not always improvement..

Er, sure, whatever…you do realise that OP’s title was quoting a song though?

This isn't an English class and the OP was quoting a song. Your comment is so irrelevant. Get your head out your arse.

I don't think mumsnet is for you if you're worried about vocabulary so much.

Try another blog.

Oh I see. You're not a racist - just an uptight book burner.

Exposure in schools should be limited to corrective exercises.
What a pile of restrictive, oppressive old wank.

Go & talk to an etymologist about how language came to be spoken, & how it constantly evolves. You are not the Speech Police, & your stance is ridiculous.

I don’t want to burn or ban books, but feel school texts should be well written, carry prosocial messages, and embrace diverse experiences. Grammar is dull. but it’s needed for clear and concise expository writing throughout life.

I didn’t know the title was a song.

It's a famous song actually:

Consider this a diverse experience in your education @Ericaequites

TBH unless the husband told her to stop working and thus is responsible for her career stalling, no she shouldn't get anything. Why should she be morally entitled to any of his things just because for a period of time their lives were intertwined?

@Ericaequites u ok hun?

One reader clearly has no understanding of Shakespeares use of language, and is a raving snob to boot. Ignore!

Yeah, let's move on from the language nonsense.

Diverse yet restrictive.

Wtf?

Stop derailing. This was an interesting thread before the grammar pedants sidetracked it.

No, you have brought the structure of the house in a way that woudl assume 50:50. That does't mean that other factors won;t move that, but also as you may be entitled to value of other things that may be in everyone's interests to make the 50:50 settlement the final outcome.

Don't fixate on what you think the situation is, just get your solicitor to deal with it. You will just give your self more stress this way. You will probably end up where you think you ought to be but you will get stressed out more by this approach.

So a woman (or man) who stays home as part of a mutual decision that the couple prefer to have one spouse carry the 'domestic load' is not due anything? That person's labour at home and support of their spouse's work is worth nothing at all? By your standards the only 'value' a marriage partner has is if they are earning an income. Wow.

I worked full time as did DH and we shared household labour. By your standards I'm due half of the marital assets. But my sister, who by mutual agreement stayed home and did everything whilst her DH built his career with no worries about having to do 'his share' of housework, child duties, etc, is due nothing? In my eyes her labour was every bit equal to mine, it was just 'in kind' labour rather than 'paid' labour. But 'in kind' labour, by definition, has value.

In a marriage it's 'our things', not 'his things' and 'her things'. This is morally right as well as legally right. A couple works together, each with their own contribution, to build a home and a family.

I think you've misunderstood the post.

She's saying that as OP didn't in any way sacrifice her career she isn't morally entitled to the extra money her husband put in. He's the one that will ultimately have lost out as he could've just spent that money elsewhere rather than give it to OP.

TBH unless the husband told her to stop working and thus is responsible for her career stalling, no she shouldn't get anything.

I don't think I misunderstood. PP is saying 'put no money in, take no money out' unless your husband tells you to stop working'. Sounds to me as if it they're saying that if you stop working to be a SAHM/housewife you're not entitled to anything unless you stop working 'under duress'. My position is that it doesn't matter if it's a mutual decision or a 'command', a non-working spouse is entitled to a portion of the marital assets (as decided by a judge). The OP isn't asking for half the marital assets. She's asking for a portion based on 50% of the value of the marital home.

I never said anything about duress or command. What I meant is that there isnt really a need for a non-mother to become a SAHM. So if her husband wanted her to stop working because it felt good to him lets say that his wife didn't need to work and he paid, then fine, in case of a divorce he's the reason her career stalled. But otherwise, if she just didn't fancy working just because she didn't have to, but it was her decision (even if the husband agreed), then she shouldn't be entitled to anything after the divorce. At least I can't see a moral case for her being entitled.

A moral case? Even if he/she just 'didn't fancy' working, if the working spouse stays with them, then they are acquiescing to it and by doing so they are agreeing to support the non-working spouse. The working spouse has a 'moral' as well as legal duty to share assets with the non-working spouse in the event of a divorce because they were complicit in allowing them not to work.

But I think we've done this to death. We'll obviously have to agree to disagree. It's not your job to convince me of your rightness and it's not my job to convince you of mine. Carry on if you wish, but I'm out of here.