I want half in the divorce. Am I likely to get it.

[Divorcein40swoman]

Posted here for traffic ..

Just looking for some legal advice.
Married 6 years . Together 15
I left him... moved out the house when he was away .. tod him afterwards
No children
He put down £200k for the house which came from the sale of a flat he owned I his name before we married.
Joint mortgage each paying half.
I continued to pay after I left which was last year
I want the divorce
I have no savings ... he has savings in an account in his name around 30k
He has an isa opened in his name after we married
We each have a pension. He can take his pension 10 years earlier than me as he's older
I earn slightly more than him and will be at work longer than him due to our ages

I want 50/50 of everything. The savings. The ISA and especially the house.
He's upset as he's not going to get a decent mortgage at his age . He also wants the £200k he put it to be given back. Us clear the mortgage and come away with about 50k each. I want half !!
What's likely to happen

You earn more money than him but didn’t put a deposit on the house and don’t have children which are expensive. Why don’t you have savings? £50k is a decent deposit on a house and you don’t need a big one because you don’t have children. I hope your husband has a good solicitor because you are grabby.

If it was down to me I would absolutely hire a lawyer to stop you being such a greedy fucker. I would genuinely rather a lawyer got the cash than you.

See a lawyer but (a) you are probably right that the house will be a marital asset after a 15 year relationship (the period you lived together before marriage extends the 6 years of marriage), (b) if the house is in both your names you have genuine leverage there as you can try and force a sale (otherwise the cost of fighting for your divorce share could be more than the value), (c) any savings he built up during your marriage are likely to also be marital assets, as are pensions etc, (d) the divorce and the financial settlement are two different things.

What makes you think you’re entitled to half when you’ve not contributed half? And there are no children?

If you were de facto during the time you both lived in and then he sold the unit and you both purchased the new house together then that asset (the unit) might be classed as shared and therefore the 200k from it as well. It's likely his pension and the savings will be considered joint if they were amassed during the marriage or de facto. Things are usually put into a pool and divided. Just see a lawyer and go from there. I only know Australian law to an extent due to being a family social worker. With no children it could do something like 60/40 to him due to the larger deposit from the unit sale which was purchased before you started living together.

How awful for him. Unless this is some kind of reverse.

it seems he is a decent hardworking person who saved and wanted the marriage to work. In return he got someone who vanished whilst he wasn’t there and wants half his pre marital assets. This would be a reasonable stance on your part if you a) had been looking after joint children for several years and b) had been suffering ill treatment from him. But neither of these apply and you just want his money because you think you can get it.

stories like this are what makes people afraid to get married. Neither of my grown up dc want to get married, ever.

Argh, if this is all true, you are the kind of woman who gives women a bad name. You didn’t contribute but you want the spoils.

I think you automatically get 50% of joint assets only after 10 years of marriage and if there are no children. But even then it can be contested. If he has evidence he put more than you into the house you wont have a chance.

Based on what you have posted op, you won't get what you want.

When ex DP and I split (we weren't married), that's what we did. We'd used the money from the sale of my property to buy our house so I got that back and we split the remaining equity. I'd have fought hard if he'd argued for half of all of it.

Very noble of you. And you and your children had to rent for 15 years so I don't see that as a victory. This is a legal issue not a moral one. OP needs to set herself up for the rest of her life and it's up to her ex husband to do the same.

If this is a genuine post I can’t see this being 50:50 tbh. That is the presumption at the start at then the whole picture is looked at. The fact it was such a short marriage plus no children plus your age plus your earning power means really you should come out with not much more than you put in. I would personally expect. 50:50 of a couple married for 30 years where there are children and you are both put into the marriage in terms of time and money. The 50:50 is to reflect that balance of the family unit for such a long time. If anything if your husband is older then he could argue less earning ability and therefore greater need.

but not a lawyer and these things are negotiated and there is no exact formula. My friend got divorced recently after 5 years and they basically took what they put in give or take. It wasn’t quite exact but there was no arguable reason for either have a claim in the other.

all you can do is talk to a specialist and take their advice.

Why do you expect to be left in a position to buy a property? You didn’t have one before, and have done nothing to save for one despite earning more than he does. Sounds like you used him for a lifestyle and expect to continue doing the same even after you’ve left him.

50k sounds reasonably fair to me.

Increase in home equity 10k, so 5k each
Savings account 30k, so 15k each
ISA unknown, split value in half
Pension difference unknown, but realistically a court is unlikely to award a lot if he is close to retirement.

Legal fees cost a lot, and won’t be worth it for assets of this size, beyond initial advice about what you can reasonably expect.

If you’re trying to maximise what you get left with in the end I’d go back to DH and offer a clear break and a quick no fault divorce for 70k. It’s likely that he would recognise that the extra 20k would be swallowed in legal fees and either agree at that figure or be willing to offer something halfway between.

me too, I’d fight tooth and nail to make sure she didn’t get my £200 000 even if it meant I didn’t end up with it myself.
Op didn’t save because she likes to live in the moment and left to find herself…..
Sounds like the person she found is brutal!

Only you two know what went on in your marriage and why. I seriously doubt a judge would award you half. You either agree a fair amount or you involve solicitors.

I put more into funds at the start, I paid all the bills incl mortgage, and did all the childcare. I worked full time and overtime, he worked 20hrs.
He got more than 50% because he had less opportunity to build back up to the same standard of living, and needed to find a property. It included ridiculous things like I had to give him cash to the value of my car, even though he didn't drive.
The only thing he backed down on was 80% of my pension, but the law would have happily given it to him.

Not always.

DH and I each had absolutely nothing when we met, so if we split (for simplicity I'll ignore the fact we'd have to account for childcare), we would be 50/50, regardless of our current earnings because at one point or another we've both been the higher earner and we've both paid more of the bills.

My sister however, her partner had a large cash deposit for their home from the same of his previous home and she had nothing. They pay bills according to their incomes, so he pays slightly more. If they split, he's entitled to more: what he put in plus his half of the proceeds from the joint home.

Your financial positions before the marriage and what you brought into it will be taken into account.

Look at it from the other side. If you'd put down a 200k deposit, would you be happy if he took half of it and then half of everything you'd paid for?

And if this is what you think/expect in your circumstances, you’ll need more than an hour of free legal advice.

To answer your other questions, he can’t stop you getting a divorce, you just apply for it and it happens. The financial split however, he can dig his heels in on.

The separation date will be the date you moved out unless you can prove you were separated and living separate lives before that date.

You were only married for 6 years, he put down £200k from a flat he owned before you were married, you’ve no dependents…. You should take the 50k he offered because if he has a half decent solicitor you won’t get anywhere near 50/50. You earn more than him and can work longer than him so you have more earning potential, go earn your own money and stop being greedy

Be honest with yourself. How would you feel if you had put in the 200k and now he wanted half of that? Would that be fine because he's "entitled to it" as a marital asset.

You sound very selfish.

You will probably get half in the end. If you're smart you tell him you want 100 k to skip the legal fees. If you ask for more and it goes on you will lose 20 k in legal fees

You'd have to do that if you'd never been married.

Im super confused you've may only have 50k equity. I think you misunderstood this. If the house is worth x but you've only paid off x.That's how much money you'll have cash wise to split.So you need to know how much money you've got in the house.How much is left on the mortgage?And then that's what you would split fifty fifty.It could actually work out less than fifty thousand you might be shooting yourself in the foot.