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!!

But she ain't messin' with no broke
Now I ain't sayin' she a gold digger
But she ain't messin' with no broke
Get down girl, go'n 'head get down
Get down girl, go'n 'head get down
Get down girl, go'n 'head get down
Get down girl, go'n 'head 🎤🎵 🎶 sorry haven't heard this song in so long 🤣

My theme tune, apparently!

Absolutely this! Not only is the deposit his he’s also been paying 70% that he CHOSE to do, this only advantaged you for years. By your own admission he also has been overpaying the mortgage which will hugely increase the equity available to you both now. There are no children and looks like the only person who has benefitted from this arrangement is yourself as it’s meant more money in your pocket each month of all other bills were split this way.

If I were him, as you were the one to end the relationship I’d definitely want anything I’d put in back. You should be glad you’ve had years of benefiting from his financial support while still now able to receive 30% of the equity only.

Can I ask people, nothing really to do with op's situation specifically, just generally, if a couple havr only been married 5 years, no children, both free to work, why does either partner have a right to the others pension? Surely both spouses chose jobs they wanted to do with an accordant pension arrangement, with no children to break career progression and stop or lower pension contributions. Why would another person be allowed to raid that pension pot? Or, in reality, does the court not usually allow that to happen?

Mm. If he wanted to keep all his assets he shouldn’t have got married. Doesn’t he know what marriage is?

Anyhoo, lots of guessing here (I’ll throw in a guess myself that lots of the anti-OP camp on here are second wives or, given the fact that the divorce hasn’t even gone through yet, OWs, who begrudge every penny the ex-wife may get). But it’ll be the qualified lawyers who decide.

OP, don’t be too kind or charitable right now. If you feel sorry for him after all this is over (unlikely) you can always throw him back a bone. Put your own oxygen mask on first.

I cannot see that happening for a second, but OP is choosing to ignore all the posts that mention “short marriages”.

In 20 years time when the dog has died, you will be wishing you went after his pension instead.

Well you’re entitled to a fair share not 50%

which could well be less than 50% as you have no dependents, haven’t sacrificed your career or earnings and he can demonstrate he’s paid in substantially more

you could also start to swallow up a lot in legal fees

get round the table and negotiate

I know nothing about the legalities to be honest.

However, the fact you don't have children together makes me far less sympathetic towards you. Lots of women's earning potential is massively reduced by the fact they have children. So while they're struggling to work and organise childcare, their husbands careers are taking off. In those cases I'm more likely to say the woman is entitled to a decent share.

This. It's quite clear from the OP's posts that she was just starting out when she met him, so was a low earner, and he put more into the mortgage as a result. She didn't earn less because of him (e.g. she didn't have children), she just earned less.

OP, I can't tell you that you're not a golddigger, because you are.

Legally, you might get your 50/50. Morally, I don't think what you're doing is right.

Do what you want though, because there's no way the two of you are going to talk to each other ever again once the divorce is finalised.

Op, your solicitor is saying you both have to make a full financial disclosure on forms E and D81 for the court. Even if you go for a “sealed” consent order where you’ve agreed between you what you want to do, the court is obliged in law to review the whole financial picture and ensure it is “fair settlement”. They may refuse to seal the order if they believe one party is not being given a fair settlement or doesn’t understand what they’re signing.

it is NOT an option to not make a full legal financial disclosure. Unless you are not making your faucial agreement legal - in which case you are being incredibly naive. It means that if you gain any money in the future through increased 3arnings, inheritance etc he could come after you again for more money. Just don’t do it. Get a clean break consent order

hen is either ill informed, or more likely deliberately deceiving you to agree something you will be the worse off for. Just tell him you/will agree to nothing until he completes and signed for E and D81 (if you’re going the consent order route). Once you see all his assets and yours then you will be able to figure out how the rules for fair settle,ent apply to both your circumstances.

it is highly unlikely a court will ring fence individual contributions to house, savings etc- when he signed the marriage registry you ensured into a legal contract to share assets. He can’t now decide that doesn’t apply. Only if marriages are very short, and short relationships, or there is an excess of assets once fair settlement criteria have been met, would he possibly be successful in convincing a court to do this

read up about the fair settlement criteria . Use the ADVICE NOW links in MN header on divorce talk board. T doesn’t start with 50:50 as some people think. It starts with fair settlement- 10 or so criteria the courts have to meet to seal any financial orders. And to do that they need to see the full, accurate and legal declaration of all assets form both parties

I dont understand all this 'morally you shouldnt do this' crack. When you enter into a marriage and you pay substantially more into the house, mortgage, pension etc then you understand its a risk that you could end up worse off. Thats the agreement of marriage. Its also why I havent done it.

I absolutely hate this unless the woman gave up work to look after kids! This is the only exception.

She was married. No one forced him to marry. Marriage status in law is key. If you don’t understand that you need to inform yourself.

I know a split is a very emotional and hard thing but you're going to come out of it very badly if you can't somehow untangle yourself from the emotion and look at cold hard facts. Clearly he knows that he can manipulate your emotions, and clearly wanting the dog is an emotional thing (I get it, I'd want the same and hell would freeze over before I gave up my dog) but if you can try to remain grounded and ignore his manipulation tactics it will help.

I would listen to your solicitor if I were you. It is NOT unreasonable for ALL of a couple's assets to be taken into account during a split - her simply looking at them doesn't mean you will go after it, it just means that you have all available data to hand in order to make your decision. It's perfectly reasonable and he doesn't get to throw your love of your dog around in order to prevent something perfectly reasonable and highly important to the process from happening. It sounds like at the end of the day he won't even want the dog, he's just using them to manipulate you - if you can rise above and ignore that, you will retain a fair share of power- if you simper and roll over every time he threatens to take the dog he will continue to manipulate and play you exactly how he wishes to.

Or maybe you need to inform yourself? Just because you were married doesn't mean you'll be entitled to someone's pension. There would have to be a lot of things at play here for a judge to even consider this. Come on now.

The marriage is relatively short but I understand an unbroken period of co-habitation can be included when calculating the length of a marriage. That’s at least 7 years as co-owners of a property, probably living together for 10-12 years in total? Op?

Ever mm…because that’s what marriage is. A legal contract.

No children and only married 5 years. You are upset you are not getting 50% of house value (as recorded by I assume professional chartered surveyor). You want more than 50% having paid little of deposit (£2500 out of £30000). You are both getting legal advice , I think leave it to solicitors.

Reads to me that dog or no dog, OP isn't interested in his pension.
So I doubt this is true.

All she wants is 50% from the house, so she can set herself up in another property.

If you don't understand the difference between "legally" and "morally", then you need to inform yourself.

Legally, she might be entitled to the 50/50 split she's chasing (because marriage is a legal contract). Morally, she isn't. The fact that he paid extra towards their lifestyle when they were together should be enough. The only reason to enforce a more even division of capital would be if he set back her career - they didn't have children. Didn't happen.

Also, they might have been together for longer, but 5 years isn't a long marriage.

When did I say I wanted more than 50%? I absoultely do not want more than 50%. I only want 50% of our house because that is what we agreed legally.

Are you happy with 50% of what the property is valued at? Not what you think it is worth?

Listen to your lawyer, I don't know what value you think the people of Mumsnet will add to this situation.

Stop negotiating with your husband, he's not looking out for you. The lawyer is. Take her advice.

Fuck him for using the dog to manipulate you. That's mean.

Again, nothing to do with the op's situation, but surely legal contracts don't automatically remove fairness. Don't judges have some sort of guidelines about marriages regarding: length, lack of children, etc?