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

So is it easier for the child/children to see their parents unhappy and falling out all the time.
Or am I missing something?

Not my experience of the real world at all. You don't leave your children. So how do you get out of a marriage that makes everyone unhappy?

Apparently you all just stay miserable for the rest of your lives!

You have left your child to an extent, if you choose to only see them EOW. Why doesn't he have 50/50 parenting?

Each of these threads, although informative, are not specifically about this case (I know this is obvious!)what happens in one case will not necessarily happen in the other case. He badly needs a solicitor to ensure, as someone has already said, that ALL assets are declared, including hers, as they also form part of the joint assets and will be looked at accordingly. My feeling is that he will only have to give up part of his pension if she has no pension herself, which I would say is unlikely if she earns £50,000. It is a myth that women can take men to the cleaners and keep everything for themselves - the judges need to have ALL financial facts from both parties and if she tries to hide any assets, he needs to be aware of this and his solicitor can force her to declare them. She is using bullyboy tactics to try to get him to agree to handing over the property. Send him to a solicitor. Oh, and if anyone here disagrees with this and thinks I am siding with the man here, I gave HALF of ALL assets to my ex-husband - I walked away with half, and my pride and dignity intact. Best thing I ever did.

You don't leave your child if you are unhappy, well obviously many parents in the UK do.
50/50 is a way not to leave your children, or as near as you can get. Several countries it is the norm. It's perfectly workable for parents who are "unhappy" and want to leave, but choose not to leave their children.

Good on you joanofgraceland. Thanks for your feedback. X

Resolutely ignoring the comments and questions about 50/50 care - presumably bevause it doesn't fit your narrative that he is the wronged fleeced wonderful father?

If you had actually read my comments you would have seen that
A. She changes the plans he has to see his son
B. He lives in a small one bedroom flat
C. His job cannot sustain 50/50 unlike her who has her parents next door who do everything even if he is offering to do school pick up she says no and that her mum will do it.

I never said he was wronged. So stop being so cutting. He just wants a share of what is rightfully his so he can start again......or us that wrong as well!

Your friend left his son!!!!! Jesus I don't understand parents who leave children. Either male or female.

So in your world people should stay together no matter what.

People don't 'leave their children' they leave their marriage. Two different things, whether you like it or not.

Wow.

I think this post has gone off on a tangent.
This post was to get advise on whether a man who left a very destructive marriage should be punished by not receiving anything from the assets.
I do appreciate the feedback and will pass on to my friend.
However the comments that were just unhelpful and cutting suggesting he was a bad father and he left her for me(still laughing about that one!) were just unneccesary. I hope you all have blissfully happy marriages and that you never find yourselves in this situation.

I agreed that she should never has withheld access.

And no, I didn't have a perfect marriage, I had a shit one as it happens, thanks to a selfish cheating arsehole.

But don't you see that it is very relevant that he has chosen to rent a one bedroom flat, and that he chooses to follow a career that relies on her to provide the childcare?

Don't you see that if he wants to outsource the lion's share of childcare to her, then it seems fair that she should get more than 50% of the assets? She'll be the one turning down promotions because she can't relocate because she doesn't want to change the child's school, move her away from her father, away from childcare support from her parents... She is the one that picks up the slack for his career choice. It's fair to compensate that.

Where is his commitment to having his child as often as his chosen career allows, if he chooses a 1 bed flat to rent?

And it's not because he can't afford a 2 bed. He pays more maintenance than CMS dictates, and has paid "for everything" on the house for the last 2 years. He's had 2 years to divorce her and address that situation, so that he could at least rent a home with a bedroom for his child.

If he chooses to stay in his career and not be a 50/50 parent in terms of childcare, then why shouldn't she get more?

Do you realise that saying she'll take the house instead of a pension share might be very good value for him?

24 years in the army, with a pension that I think starts paying out aged about 52 (happy to be corrected - I dated a Major and I know his could start in his 50s).
Most likely it is a Final Salary Scheme.
If she wasn't paying the mortgage from her £50K salary when they were married, it's a fair guess that he was earning more than that.

So it is very possible that his pension is worth FAR more than the house that she wants in settlement instead.

That's why he needs to go through full financial disclosure - her pension, her share of parents house, their house, his pension etc etc.

It's easy to call money grabbing bitch because she wants the house, but the fact is his pension is a considerable asset and he spears to have abdicated the majority of the childcare - and for that she should be compensated.

Seriously - you have to take a big pinch of salt when you hear people complaining about ex wives getting all the money.

Tell him to just get on with the divorce like he should have done 2 years ago.

Oh and for the record: I requested about 30% of my marital assets because I felt that whatever the law allowed, I didn't personally feel entitled to a share of some wealth accumulated before the marriage. I went for 50/50 on post marriage assets - even though I was financially disadvantaged by the divorce because... I am picking up the majority of childcare and it is impacting my career!
So I'm certainly not someone who walked away with all the assets, I chose not to.

But I can absolutely see why a woman left holding the baby would also want to be left holding the house!

"His job cannot sustain50/50"..well he should have thought of that before he procreated. He'll have to find a job that does then won't he, and learn to juggle like many unsupported single parents. If he was forking out for the 24/7 childcare she's saving him by doing the majority of it, he's no real reason to complain.

Also said all been helpful and will share the advice.
Thx

**as I said ( not also)

A little off topic but connected to the discussion around the financial subsidy provided by a primary carer and which I only hear referred to in terms of the primary carer being awarded a slightly larger share of the assets. Based on a standard childcare rate of £10 per hour, if a non resident parent has the child two evenings a week and every other weekend, the primary carer, after subtracting a standard school year is providing around 2200 more hours than the NRP - £22,000 per year.