House/pension

[tic73]

My friend is having trouble with his soon to be ex wife with the house and pension. Because he left her she thinks she deserves 100% of the house. Although she works (50k) a year she has never really paid towards mortgage etc. he was in the army for 24 yes and his corturity payment was the deposit for their house about 4 yrs ago. She has said if he goes for any of the house she will go for his army pension. He is being left with nothing so unable to start again. Would she be entitled to keep the house on the treat of going for the pension? Her living expenses are all covered. She does not need more money it's just all because she is angry with him leaving. It was 2 yrs ago and she has been in a new relationship for 18mths.
TIA

She is normally entitled to 50% of the assets of the marriage, this includes the pension and it is irrelevant who left who.
I assume there are no children under 18.
Depending on his age and the pension amount and the equity in the house, he may well be getting the better deal.

There is one child who is 7 yrs old and he pays a more than fair maintenance. Could you elaborate on him getting the better deal as she wants to leave him with nothing. Would the court grant that? She has a share in her parents house. Would that be included in the assets?

Granted he left but he still paid for everything even though they split 2yrs ago! He left with nothing from the house and just lives in a rented one bed flat.

All the assets have to be declared on both sides. It is a myth that one side or the other takes all. The over-riding principle is a 50-50 split, although this can work out slightly differently depending on particular circumstances, minor children, earning capacities, etc. He will do ok, so will she, but they will both suffer some financial impact from divorce.

Your friend left his son!!!!! Jesus I don't understand parents who leave children. Either male or female. However the courts do not care about morality, only legal issues that all assets belong equally to each side. The pension is NOT HIS, it is THEIRS. The house is NOT HERS, it is THEIRS. That is called marriage. Irrelevant who paid for the mortgage. Irrelevant who might have saved or spent money more. It's called marriage.

Anyway, you add up all the assets, house equity, all pensions which get allocated an official CETV value. You then divide by 2. Then negotiations start.

Your friend has left his son. He is living with his mum. Maintenance is NOT relevant to this. The son needs somewhere to live. It is reasonable to say the mum needs more to cover housing costs for the son, but the income levels are taken into account of mother and father. The split of the 100% assets might not be 50/50, it is based on the needs of each family member.

Negotiations might lead, if the house and pension are roughly equal value, to the house going to the mum and son and the pension going to the father. It sounds like this may be the solution in this situation, but a bit of adjustment might be needed, so one of the sides might have to pay a cash sum to the other to get to the percentage negotiated. Both sides need to have a reality check that they either work it out now or they go to court and the judge will divide 40/60 or 60/40 or whatever and either side will likely pay their own legal costs. If you represent yourself in court, of course the costs are zero if you are the defendant. I had to represent myself, simply because my husband who left 4 children wanted 55% of the assets. He spent 25k trying to get 55% of the assets. The judge awarded him 37% of the assets in the end and I paid no court costs. Court is inevitable if either or both sides refuse to accept the reality that EVERYTHING IS OWNED JOINTLY and that the person left with the greater burden for children / lesser earning power gets a greater percentage of the joint assets.

PS if the husband's pension is worth the value of the house, the wife might well be right in thinking she deserves 100% of the house. Find out the CETV value of your friend's pension and then you will know if the wife is correct. And all the other assets too.

Thanks for the advise. Just to be clear he didn't leave his son he left his wife. He lives nearby and is very hands on dad.
I see what you are saying.....she has a pension and a share in her parents house so would this be included?
Thanks.

It's impossible to give sensible advice as to outcome on such slim information. Your friend needs to see a solicitor, with the whole story.

His pension was/is from the army that he paid into for 24 yrs. they were married for 5 so is she really entitled to so much. She was married before and again took the lot even though no kids!

I think you're going off hearsay there - it's very unlikely that she "got the lot" in her previous marriage. The law simply doesn't do that - and if it was a private agreement then that's between her and her ex husband.

The length of marriage can be considered in court - but a judge wouldn't just look at the wedding date. It may be 5 years ago, but they had a child 7 years ago. So a judge would consider it at least a 7 year relationship. 7 years plus a child certainly lifts you into a shared assets time frame, not a 5 minute marriage.

Your details are too vague to be of any use. A 24 year final salary army pension is likely to worth a lot - easily more than a house depending on where they live / how much equity there is.

Her own pension and the share of her parents house (if she legally owns it) will be included in the calculations.

Why is your friend paying maintenance? Why doesn't he have his son 50% of the time?

You clearly don't like her.

Oh and just to add... If she's never paid towards the mortgage, then that was his choice of the marriage that he wanted.
So, if he chooses and unequal financial split in marriage, then he's chosen it in divorce too.
I suspect the detail is in the "never really" paid towards the mortgage. It probably means that the mortgage payment came from his account/salary but the she paid for other things.

No I don't like her and I'm not alone. Using a child and cancelling days with his dad at last min just be awkward is not a nice trait. 50% access! Can't even stick to every other weekend. Wants to take everything as a punishment!
Sorry rant over.

So, why hasn't he proposed 50/50 shared care and taken that to mediation and if necessary court?
No maintenance, and less possibility for maintaining care.
Oh and most importantly - equal time parenting and enjoying his child.

The Army has a sadly well trodden route, so she will get (as initial calculation, subject to negotiation over total assets) one half of the value for the number of years they were married.

As the gratuity was paid and spent during the marriage, it's quite likely that would be seen as a marital asset.

Firstly he needs legal advice as no one here will be able to determine the outcome
However, all assets and liabilities from both spouses will be put into the pot as starting point to determine what is available for sharing. THen the negotiations start and the outcome will depend on a whole heap of variable but will include
Ages of both parties
earnings of both parties both current and potential future
Has one partner been financially disadvantaged i.e. due to childcare role
length of marriage (and possible co-habitation prior to this)

She will also need to declare her pension.

Courts wont look to hand one spouse everything while leaving the other with nothing. It will look to reach a fair outcome (which is subjective and does not mean 50:50). It will put the needs of the child(ren) first to ensure they have adequate housing met and don't suffer undue financial hardship.

If he is having problems with child access he needs to get a CAO in place and poush for 50:50 and ensure that she sticks to it!. Keep records of cancelled days, emails etc to prove this.

When you leave a child, you leave them. No good complaining about access!! If he left, he left. He left the mum caring for the son. Parents who don't leave their children tend to have 50/50 arrangement, either by mutual agreement or court imposed.

I know I'm being a bit inflammatory, but I am just trying to show what it's like for the 95% of women whose husband leave them and the children.

I suspect you're going to say that he can't do 50/50 because of his work.
So she has to do more childcare.
Which is exactly why pensions (which are driven by earning capacity during the marriage which is impacted by career development which is impacted by providing childcare) is part of a divorce calculation.

We have no information on why the marriage break down or why he chose to leave so I don't think it helpful to make out the woman is the wronged partner and therefore he should get his come uppance. Following on the logic of some people it means no one with children would ever get divorced and you should stay together for the sake of the children - a view usually not supported on mumsnet

OP - I suggest you try to stay out of this as much as possible (in the nicest possible way) and just ensure that he seeks good legal support and advice and let them deal with it. But to answer your questions, yes everything she owns needs to go in the pot and everything he owns goes in. Solicitors and via mediation they might be able to come to agreement, or ultimately court will decide based on all relevant factors to them

Thank you millymollymoomoo. I was starting to wonder why he was being condemned for leaving an unhappy marriage!
Yes legal advise needed. Think it's going to be a long drawn out process but it is between them agreed. X

Are you the OW that he left his wife for OP?

Haha! No! There was no one involved. Just in a bitterly unhappy marriage! Maybe he should have stayed and been miserable forever?

When you leave a child, you leave them. No good complaining about access!! If he left, he left. He left the mum caring for the son. Parents who don't leave their children tend to have 50/50 arrangement, either by mutual agreement or court imposed.

Live in the real world. When a relationship breaks down, one parent has to physically leave. Usually the father. It's not unheard of for a woman to kick a man out then claim he "left". You have no idea what the case was here.

There are many reasons for not having 50:50- the main one being if the mum is living in the house with the children, there may not be enough money to pay for a second property suitable for the children. If the o/p's friend is in a one bed flat, staying there 3 or 4 nights a week may not be ideal when they have their own bedroom at home.

o/p he needs a solicitor. Division of assets and the house will depend on housing the children. I know DH got to keep his pension as his ex was living with someone else, but she got to keep 90% of the assets because dividing them would have caused a house sale, and that was considered detrimental to the children as there wasn't enough to split 50:50 and buy two properties suitable for children.

Thank you Micah! X

Not my experience of the real world at all. You don't leave your children.