daft financial settlement offer?

[pinkhalf]

Divorcing husband. I have just got his first without prejudice offer on finance.

Its rubbish, I think. 50/50 on equity, he keeps his pensions, his investments, and his investment in his mothers house. We split debts equally.

Me? I get to keep my pension. 50 per cent of the house. Or I can buy him out for around 170000 to avoid disrupting our daughters life.

I am the main carer for our child who will start school next year - no read sole carer at the moment as he does no over nights. I work part time. I earn a third of what he does, and he works for a financial fund with bonuses.We were married for seven years, but had a realtionship for 10 years before.

So the offer is laughable - but really, is it normal to have such stupid offers? I mean, I assume I'm due more than this. Its not really an attempt to agree anything - it cant be anything that a court would agree, given we have a childand I'm going to struggle to raise a mortgage sufficient to stay in London....

is this just standard greedy high earner bullshit?

[DeoGratias]

Yes, we decided our pensions were probably worth about the same and had 20 years of full time earning to come anyway so made no claims on the pension of the other and we both always worked full time.

My older children asked me to divorce their father so my divorce was utterly different from most. Nothing has done us all more good.

[westendgirlx]

Your offer is better than mine! My husband wants to keep the house without paying me a penny! Laughable!

Anyway...the 50:50 equity is normal. You could claim half of his pension and he could claim half yours. Or you could both leave each other's pensions alone. However....you can ask for maintenance! Esp as you look after your daughter most of the time and he earns more! I don't know if that will enable you to keep the house, but it will help you pay for somewhere suitable! Ask a solicitor for help!

Good luck!

[tbtc20]

By professionals I mean.

[tbtc20]

Thank you Deo.
Yes, I have also been told it is rare to split children.
We haven't told them we are divorcing.
Husband is using DS2 as a pawn. DS1 less so but I would not put him past trying to guilt DS into saying he wants to live with him.
Are teenagers supported?

[DeoGratias]

(tbt, I was similar in that I earned a lot more than my ex (and for someone in that position a clean break was definitely sensible - that is a clean break from claiming spousal support from each other as we both worked full time). In our case my solicitor said if the older children would efinitely choose to live with me (they were old enough to choose as your 16 year old woudl be) the court would be unlikely to split the younger children from the older and thus it was very likely the children would live with me,. I would not have divorced had that not been so. )

[ThisIsStartingToBoreMe]

www.st-philips.com/our-people/barristers/nick-howell-jones/

direct access barrister I used

[pinkhalf]

I can't see that a clean break is any good when we have a 3 year old - really, he can pony up with a lump sum for a clean break if that is what he wants! I want no tie with him - he can fuck off forever. He fought me for some time to avoid paying child maintenance which told me everything in terms of his attitude, and then stopped paying the mortgage after claiming he couldn't afford that either (nb he pays both of these things now, fool). You really do learn about people properly on divorce.

There are no investments except the pensions - he got us into debt.

I suppose I can just wait it out. As far as I can see I can just sit here and make him pay general costs on the basis of his income now. This is stupid and doesn't resolve anything. And it costs him money. I don't get it. It's like he can't let go or something - if he wants shot of me then I'd have assumed a quick offer and bam, done.

The lawyer is excellent but seriously expensive though she's got so many excellent points that I would just have missed and is clearly laying the ground well for court (I can see that she's busy making him look bad (not too hard as this is someone who gets his lawyers to write about splitting domestic items like hoovers and sends odd emails trying to get me to commit insurance fraud!)- however the matter is complex and I've no doubt that I will need some alternative advice to conclude this properly in my favour. And I am told it will take at least another year from the date of issue to sort.

Child access is a big problem after section 47, then section 7 report to come - I think it will be supervised access for quite a while. Ex's behaviour has been considerably less than mint condition towards child. But he wants shared custody - really, I can see that he wants that because its about money. I will just have to wait for section 7 to come through.

Does anyone know a good direct access barrister who can do both finance and child custody cases? I have to explore cutting costs on at least one of these matters and getting some resolution.

[Borninthe60s]

He's gone in at what he knows is the minimum.

[tbtc20]

Sorry to hijack this thread, but there seem to be some experienced and knowledgeable people here.

I am mid-divorce. Decree nisi has been filed. I've submitted Form E.
I am leaving an EA marriage. He has thrown around all manner of threats, most of which are bollocks, but the ones regarding our 2 children (6 & 16) do keep me awake at night.

Background - I have always been the main breadwinner, have a modest pension. I work full time from home.

He has increasingly worked less and less and thus been more and more dependent on me.

He claims he will say he gave up his job prospects in order to care for the children. He says he has grave concerns about how I will care for DS2.

So, he is claiming to hold the more traditional female role.

Of course, the thought of my children not living with me is unbearable.
FWIW, I have never suggested to him that I would fight him for anything more than 50:50 - it's him who started this war.

The reality is that he barely works at the moment.
I do pretty much all of the housework and house admin. I take DS1 to the bus in town every morning and also do most of the pick ups (he's at 6th form).

On days he's working (about 5 so far this year) I also sort DS2 out. Working from home gives me flexibility and I use after school club. As I work for a US company I am often working in the late evening.

He did indeed give up a nice p/t job - IN ORDER TO GO TRAVELLING FOR 3 MONTHS.

Essentially he has a Nanny like role. He's using DS2 as a pawn at the moment, which is heartbreaking, but also highlights just what he thinks SAHDs do e.g. he only ever used to be DS2 to bed unless I was not there ie default was Mum, but he was happy to step in. Now DS2 always asks for Daddy, so he puts him to bed. I then go around the house finishing off what is actually putting children to bed ie putting the toothbrush and paste back where it goes, picking clothes up off the floor, tidying up, books back on shelf etc. He thinks putting him to bed is getting him to brush his teeth and reading him a story. Happy happy DS2 - isn't made to wash, doesn't put his clothes away etc. You can see why Daddy's the goody.

I'm just so worried as the full time worker he's going to find some way to have the kids (and thus the house)

OMG..this is an essay. Feeling like I shouldn't send it now...but hey it's been cathartic to write it.

[DeoGratias]

My ex got 59% of joint assets but I had always worked full time and earned more. There is a shortage at present of good solicitors to work full time - you might find it is better for your child and family and finances if you go back full time now. I always worked full time as a lawyer when the children were babies even . It is not impossible to achieve. That way you could get a mortgage to release £170k equity from the home to buy out our husband's share perhaps?

Also how much are the investments? 55% split in the house for someone fairly young like you are with about 30 years of working life ahead of you in high paid work as a solicitor is not too bad a deal. Clean breaks are psychologically better.

I suspect the court will not order supervised contact only but who knows

[ThisIsStartingToBoreMe]

What authorities

[pinkhalf]

The authorities suggest it should be supervised - I'm okay with this. He isn't.

[AyeAmarok]

He's probably only suggesting 50% contact to avoid paying maintenance for the children. Don't fall for it.

[ThisIsStartingToBoreMe]

Why does his behaviour suggest he should only have supervised access?

[pinkhalf]

Oh its crap - really bad. I think the issue is that I know a court won't sign off on it. He must think I'm cracked if I will. So why waste the time by making the same offer with a very small adjustment? It's wastes my time and his.

[pootlebug]

I think he is trying to set a low benchmark so that when he comes back with his next (better, but still not great) offer, you think to yourself that it's so much better so accept it. Don't fall for it!

[pinkhalf]

I am so utterly tired. He has now offered 55/45 and the rest of the terms are the same, with a clean break. This does nothing for me or his daughter. I know its bullshit but the question is what I do now.

He threatens to take me to court on a 50 per cent basis if I refuse this "generous" offer (what a threat I dont think). In effect, I have wasted my time and effort trying to broker an agreement with this man that does not go to court.

I have to take him to court. I don't see that I can get a reasonable offer out of him. His offer is exactly the same with a small adjustment on the split on the basis that I can suddenly earn a six figure sum with a young child. That won't happen.

He is also taking me to court about child access and wants 50 per cent even though his behaviour suggests he should only have supervised contact and I can't ever see us having an amicable relationship take make a shared care relationship work - another drain on me. I am so utterly tired and I have run out of money. I can't afford to accept his offer but I don't see how I can carry on like this. I can't run two court cases but each are vital. I'm pretty depressed currently, I've injured my back and feel utterly bullied.

I really want to cut to the chase and get on with it - anyone else have experience of a DH with his head in the sand about finance. How did you resolve it? I don't want six months of incremental offers where he grinds me down.

[financialwizard]

Hmm interesting that I came across this because I think my ex is just about to go that route and our circumstances are almost identical. Whilst I do actually want him to have some money from the house so that he can buy a property where we live I can't agree to a 50/50 split of the equity because the reality is I am going to need at least 86% of it to enable me to buy a property that can house the children. My mortgage borrowing power is approximately 33% of his and I need a bigger property because one of my children was born from a previous screwed up marriage (great I am).

I am also self representing when it comes to the financial side of things but have had legal advice on what my starting point should be, and my solicitor advised 100% of the equity and 50% of his pension which seems overly harsh given that we have only been married 7 years.

I am going for a clean break order though because in the future I could inherit quite significantly if my grandparents or parents don't need care (unlikely - Mum is not well now).

Personally I think it is the unknown that is stressing me out more than anything. At least if I knew what he wanted I could counter it.

[TheFormidableMrsC]

DeoGratias, I am not suggesting the OP rushes to court, however, I don't think that she should be seen to be openly compromising at the moment. My view is that she would be better working out an offer to her ex that suits her and working from there. He is clearly trying to avoid his responsibilities and at this time, she is vulnerable to exploitation.

It was slightly different for me as I was a self-representing litigant and did not have solicitor/barrister fees. However, sometimes the court route is unavoidable when you are dealing with somebody who is absolutely not prepared to negotiate or budge an inch. I would have given anything to avoid it, it was an absolute nightmare and has cost me two years of my life I will never get back. However, it was the right thing to do and the outcome I achieved justified it.

I am hopeful that the OP can make some progress via mediation. It really is the best way all around...but it has to be fair and the child absolutely must come first.

[DeoGratias]

Many people who to go court spend all the sum they actually have to split between them on lawyers and don't get a penny so I would not rush to avoid compromises. We negotiated directly at home and yes his 60% might be high but it would have cost us the differnce between mty offer and his (which was higher than 60% as he wanted maintenance for life as well despite working full time) to litigate the issue. Better the spouse has the money than lawyers surely?

[TheFormidableMrsC]

tribpot is absolutely right, compromise is not a word that should be passing your lips at this stage. You can think it, sure, but don't dare say it! I was perfectly willing to compromise, indeed offered a very reasonable split that would have seen my ex walk away with a sizeable chunk of the equity and given me a chance to get back on my feet professionally and emotionally. He said no. He fucked up. I would suggest a hardball approach, the compromise needs to come from him, not you. He is not thinking about the best interests of your child and most certainly not you. This is all about him. In court, your child comes first.

[tribpot]

It has nothing to do with sexual equality - if I were divorcing my DH the situation would be reversed, i.e. he is the SAHD and I am the breadwinner. It's about recognising long term financial impacts on the partnership if these are being borne disproportionately by one member of the partnership. You could have both gone back to work part time when your child was born and shared all childcare responsibilities equally. You both chose a different arrangement of responsibilities. Those come with penalties. If he had wanted to avoid this situation now he should have made a salary sacrifice earlier.

Unfortunately I think you may have the wrong attitude to this negotiation if you are now looking to offer a compromise. His offer seems to be an extreme position from which he can negotiate a few concessions and still reach the position he he really wants. If you start from a position of compromise you are going to get dragged much further towards his desired position than your own.

[pinkhalf]

He has only made this offer after I threatened him with maintenance pending suit. He refused to pay reasonable sums to maintain the child and the house. So he has to pay that now and wants out before he has even less resource to pay the lawyers.

[pinkhalf]

I think his view is that this is sexuality equality. I earned this, you earned that. I keep my things you keep yours. Child? Nothing except legally set mimimum.

I have had a relationship with him for nearly 20 years.

[pinkhalf]

We have made voluntary from e disclosure. The financial disclosure does not seem incomplete to my eye. It does skate over a few areas, namely bonus. These could be six fugure sums.

I am not adverse to returning to work full time of course once our child is in school. The issue being I will have been out of the most high earning field for 13 years and therefore I wonder as to the practicality of such a return. The knock on effects of such jobs are pulling all nighters and very long hours at the office requiring nannies to take of the child. Doubtful that is really in the best interests of our child, particularly since current employment offers great flexibility interms of hours and working from home. I would say that I am at the top end of my current field, however, with scope for promotion. I would have to retrain in another - ok possible perhaps - but that cant be done in the space of year or so. This has to be contrasted with his proposed contact arrangements where I do the donkey work during the week and he gets the child at the weekends. Mmm.

Further, whether the law is unfair on higher earners is moot. This offer is unreasonable even by current standards. I wouldn't aim to take everything from this man but his bum offer suggests that rather stupidly, it may actually be in my best interests to do so. Either it is calculated to be stupid or drive me to mediation, I dont know.