Ex husband worth a million and offered me only £7000 financial claim

[AmyJahabee]

Hi all,

I made a financial claim against my ex husband and he offered me £5000 and he is worth almost a million. Is this suppose to be a joke.

we were married for 7 years I was not working at the time so he pay for everything whilst I look after the house, no children involved in the marriage. Is that all I get because I didn’t contribute financially? It’s been 3years since the divorce, he has put in so much lies about me towards his statement. I’m going to decline the offer.

can I just decline or ask for a reasonable amount?

No, I haven't.
I was raised in a time where women weren't allowed to wear a pair of trousers, wear a miniskirt, hold their own documents , walk on the street unaccompanied or go for a jog.
Even the wives of those men had rights, they wouldn't be let down like this.

This was never in the UK unless you are 200 years old @NannyAnabela

prh47bridge is a lawyer. You aren't. You may not like the law but that doesn't stop it from being what it is. And she didn't mention spousal maintenance.

You need to speak to a solicitor! How much was he worth when you met?

Op. As said it changes things when it’s a relatively short marriage. Can I ask, how is the 1m broken down, how much of that is house and pension? And how much did he have before the marriage, ie what is rhe difference in value in 7 years.

ive no doubt you’re entitled to more than being offered, but you need to provide more detail here.

Your mother was a mother not a stay at home wife!

Anyway OP is kidding herself she's homing to get more!

Net worth... Does it involve a property he had before the marriage? A business maybe? A private pension? Some assets are not exactly liquid. It's quite different being wealthy and cash-rich vs. all money tied up in a run down country house. What about debt?

The courts will not permit a completely "unfair" financial settlement in divorce so that will be an indicator too. Though I'm not sure if that happens only when children are involved.

It's not about what people on Mumsnet think you deserve its what you are legally entitled to. A solicitor will help negotiate that. I assume it will be a lot more that £5000. It is not just a salary that contributes to a marriage. You really need help with this.

Wow that’s awful,is it even allowed to attack ans abuse people like this ?

@NonPlayerCharacter a warning for you, @prh47bridge says she's a lawyer, this is an internet forum with anonymous people on it.

Yes, he could be forced to sell if that is the only way to give her a fair settlement. No, it wouldn't be any different if the £1m was from investments pre-marriage. If it had been a short marriage (generally classed as 5 years or less) it would be different. The courts would then care about where the assets came from and would try to put the parties broadly back in the position they were before marriage. For a marriage of this length, whether assets were acquired pre- or post-marriage has little effect on the settlement.

As for what would be considered fair, we don't have enough information to say. The starting point is always a 50/50 split. The courts then look at things like the earning capacity and other financial resources available to each party (the party with the lower earning capacity is likely to get more of the assets), the financial needs of each party and a number of other factors such as age and any disabilities.

Also if that's your real name. Please change it for this site.

See a lawyer, you should get half 🤷‍♀️

Are you feeling ok

What does a factory have to do with anything?

The starting point is always a 50/50 split

nit for a short marriage, seldom would she be entitled to what he had before he married her, it would be 50/50 of what came into the marriage after the marriage.

amd she needs to be clear how did she arrive at rhe 1 million mark, home, pension etc. this could be the guy has 500k in a pension pot so she thinks he’s worth that.

It literally is. You clearly have no idea of the law.

As a country, we prefer clean splits to spousal maintenance. The party with the lower earnings capacity gets a larger share of the assets instead of maintenance. We still do order maintenance where there is a big imbalance in earnings capacity but insufficient assets to compensate.

The starting point where there are no children is a 50/50 split. We only put parties back where they started if it was a short marriage (5 years or less).

No history of independence is needed.

How many spouses have you represented in divorce proceedings?

If there were no children and you didn’t stop work so that his career could progress then I don’t know why you would be entitled to any of his money ? If you had stayed home to take care of the children so he could work then yes of course , the same would apply if you had paid towards the upkeep of the house , but if you haven’t and you just didn’t work or contribute throughout the marriage why would you be entitled to anything ?

Have you missed anything important out of this post ? Because honestly it sounds like you married someone rich , had 7 years of not having to work or having to contribute anything financially . It would be decent of him to offer you something so you can start a life but if it’s his money and he has earnt or inherited it and you did nothing to help him do that then really, you aren’t owed anything and I would take the £7000 and be grateful

Yes, it is considered a long marriage. In general, a short marriage is 5 years or less.

OP. If you've been divorced for 3 years and are working why do you need his money?

Then she should know that based on the information that’s been provided she shouldn’t be giving advice.

And she is wrong - the starting point is not 50/50 so she’s also a bad lawyer. Pre marital assets do not form part of a settlement as a starting point.

Threads like these are exactly why I’ll be recommending to both my children never to get married if they’re in the stronger financial position and I will never remarry. The thought of giving half my assets away to someone who has contributed nothing financially and not even has the excuse that they are staying home to raise children is bonkers.

Another bright spark here, are you?
I am in my 50s. You will note by my name and when I have said "where I originally came from" that I am not british.

You need to speak with you mother and grandmother if you think one would need to go back 200 years for things to be experience those events.

I am talking about the 70's, in Europe, bright spark!

You will also note that I am a nanny, you can see my name = Nanny Anabela.
I worked in the UK in 1990's.
The grandmother was a stay at home Mum, didn't work. I have never heard anyone asking her why she didn't work - it was obvious, she was married and was a stay at home wife - like nearly all women.
Her daughter - in the late 80's - got married and stop working before getting married. Diana, Princess of Wales generation, also Sarah, Duchess of York.
In the 1990's, in the UK, women would study, get an education and work until they get married. Then they would becomes wives and mothers. Some worked part time for peanuts.

Today, in 2024, there are many wives who stop working when they have chidren and are stay at home mums.

It looks like you haven't spent much time thinking or reading about how life was a couple of decades ago, or even now for that matter, as there are many couples choosing to have a stay at home wife - children or no children.
Maybe you should.

And. Clearly 'too busy' to post

FIRST, before you get yourself heavily involved in solicitor that cost you £200+ per hour for every second they’re thinking about your case…head over to divorce board. You’ll get way more sensible advice there

on that board header is a link to ADVICE NOW . That provides guide to tell you everything you need to know about divorce process. Tells you what you need solicitor for, what you don’t and what task you may want to use one for

ADVICE NOW will explain you cannot agree to anything before you’ve BOTH done a legal financial declaration. That includes income, businesses, pensions, savings, investments, inheritance etc. EVERYTHING. Until he’s done thst you agree to nothing.

ADVICE NOW explains the law of “fair settlement” with respect to future needs . You need to read that to understand how it applies to you and exh . Only you will know this. There are 10 or so criteria that can apply. Settlements do not start with 50:50 , but they do start with ensuring are both fairly provided for with the joint assets belonging to him or you or both .

Read these. Don’t do anything or agree to anything until you’ve got your head around them. Then head over to divorce board for further advice if needed

ADVICE NOW are a charity, they also provide a list of solicitor willing to work on specific tasks you need at a fair rate. We used them and they were very good. You may also qualify for some legal aid to help with court cost. But avoid using solicitors where possible accept for thos3 tasks outlined in ADVICE NOW

ADVICE NOW are for ngliwh and Welsh law. Scotland slightly different but assume there’s a similar charity there, if you search

@prh47bridge

But for short marriages (under 1 years) especially with no children they take into consideration assets before the relationship too. Whilst a fair and final settlement should be reached (spousal maintenance is rare in the U.K. and tends to be time limited and only in specific circumstances) walking away with 50% which is implied by some is not the law.

A solicitor can write a letter to him with a proposal for a financial order (I'm presuming this wasn't done at the time of divorce, if it was there's nothing more can be done) and proceed from there

In the 1990's, in the UK, women would study, get an education and work until they get married. Then they would becomes wives and mothers. Some worked part time for peanuts.

What a load of nonsense.