Am I being too greedy (EXDH says I am). Need objective opinion.

[numbbrain]

We are about to be divorced and I have made him an offer which he has declined and says is too greedy.

I would really appreciate any objective facts either from professional opinion or cases you know of.

23 years married - both 53
DH - slary £85K + 40k bonus yearly.
Pension CETV 640k
Bought new house with 220k mortgage

Me - earn about 8k part time work.
Left good job to look after children
Diagnosed later with complex PTSD
Pension CETV 24k
Living in home with 298k equity and 73k mortgage outstanding

3 children live with me when not at university.

He has offered for me to have the equity in the house and pension of 170k. His solicitor says that the trade off for capital and pension is 25%.

I am looking for equity, plus 300k pension.

Am I being greedy.

TIA

I'd like to stay in the house if possible. The deal we got on the mortgage when we moved in is 0.5% below base rate so the payments are very low.

I am certainly thinking about selling in about 5 years when all the children have finished university.

The sticking point we have at the moment is around the pension. My solicitor is basing the sharing pension on the value of 600k and his is valuing the pension at 25% of that as the capital equivalent.

I'd get him to pay off the mortgage and £200k of pension seems fair.

You could get a pension valuation report which would resolve the value, it is costly and takes time but could resolve the issue.
It is likely to be needed if this went to court.

Yes, I think that I will do that as I'm pretty sure his CETV is undervalued.

The sticking point is he is saying that 600k pension is worth 150k as a cash equivalent.

Given he can access the pension in two years I get the feeling that it would be valued higher as it's much closer to being an asset than say if he was only 40

You’re not being greedy.

GIven all the facts you’ve posted, your share is worth FAR more than what you're asking for. You gave up your career to raise his children, because of that he’s earning £85k plus £40k bonus, £600k pension. Meanwhile you have PTSD, an income of £8k, a small pension & uni aged kids who have the right to come home from uni and you’re the one providing that home - would he see them homeless?

He’s having a fucking laugh.

It concerns me because I'm in the marital home with the adult children and he took the endowment for this house (50k) and used it to buy himself a 4 bed detached house with a mortgage and now he's saying that because the children are over 18, I should sell the house and downsize.

He only bought a 4 bed house for himself becuase he wanted what I had. The children are only there 3 nights a month on average and even less now they are off to university.

I really don;t know how the judge will see it.

How the Judge will see it? Well let me tell you after having 7 of them it will depend entirely on which side of the bed they got out of and what they had for breakfast. I am being deadly serious. As I have said more than once now, work out what you need going forward, use a spreadsheet and use that as a starting point. Then you can prove you are not being greedy and only want what is fair. The money is there to pay for legal advice so use it and get the Form E''s completed . You need to start being proactive rather than discussing what if's on here. Tell us what you have done so far, what solicitors have done so far and what stage you are at, are any court dates set?

You’re not being greedy. My ex was on 100k a year plus bonuses, I was on 27k. I got 90% equity and a hefty pension share which gives us equality of income in retirement. Two adult kids, one working and one at Uni. Is the pension final salary. Because if so, the CETV is likely to be undervalued. Pretty sure court will order an actuary’s report, they did with us and our combined pensions were less than yours. I think given your ages, length of marriage and huge differential in salaries what you are proposing is very fair.

He has already bought a house and got a mortgage with the endowment from our house. So he used the endowment policy that should have paid off the mortgage on your house to buy a new one. If so then surely that money should either be add to the total asset pot or come off the amount he is entitled to.

Yes it will come off his share, but now he has a mortgage of 220k and is using this to prove he needs more than 50% of the pension.

Or he wants half of the capital in the house, which will mean me downsizing to a 2 bed at best, with 3 adult children at home from uni.

Crimsonlake - so far we have been through mediation and completed the Form E (a year ago before he bought his house). I have filed for divorce with the courts and he has just returned his forms.

I have presented a proposal which would allow me to stay in the house and have half his pension.

He is refusing this, saying it is never going to happen.

Do you have a state pension forecast?

Judges are completely unpredictable, it seems newly appointed judges are putting 50:50 principle into force but it does seem to depend on their personal bias.Lifestyle is not a factor as the 2015 ruling said "there should be no undue hardship but that doesn't mean NO hardship"

Do you have strong basis for health issues as this could be questoned by a judge. The focus is on you maximising earnings or benefits. Are you entitled to anything?
With 300k pension do you know what your pension forecast would be? This is some thing that would be required.

Could you compromise on the difference? You are £130k apart so would £235k be more acceptable?

It would seem you would have close to £600k and he would have £350k. Plus you have SM..how long is that planned for? Depending on the Judge but it might look too favourable to you.

Your Ex would argue that it is high risk as he has no guarantee of re building capital at his age. A judge might take sympathetic view.

I speak as someone who went to court, I got a better deal than Ex offered but it was 50:50 and limited SM despite having younger dc and Ex earns an absolute fortune so could easily pay more.
It seemed that the Judge just took the difference between the 2 proposals rather than actual needs. This was despite all the prep (I paid for ) for solicitors to prepare the court bundles.

Based on my experience and that of a friend with the 3 young DC the courts are not acknowledging the impact of taking time out to raise a family. It is a massive risk for women . I had always worked but took a lower level job so that my hours were predictable whilst Ex travelled. It has cost me significantly and I will have to downsize when youngest goes to Uni.

I think you're being greedy. You have three grown children. Get a full time job and stop relying on your ex to provide support. His offer is more than enough.

@lifebegins50 excellent post. You are absolutely right. We already have a very broken society with many children unable to cope and here the courts are forcing even more children to be palmed off into daycare or left to their own devices. We are going to see a lot more children harmed by this and the judges remain unaccountable.

They 2015 ruling that came in absolutely failed to look at women who might have given up work years before as a JOINT decision and are now expected to return to work at the same level after many years out of the workplace.

To Greenlanes

If you are referring to the Lord Pritchford ruling known as “get a job” I think you have misinterpreted. The ruling was that as the children were old enough for the ex wife to find a part time job to fit around the children’s school hours like many other mothers in the UK.

My mum paid an actuary to value my dads pension pot, because he had 10 plus years left to add to his pot she ended up getting 74% of the pot.

Missed - I didnt remember the name, but that still leaves women and children very vulnerable. After all there are very few parttime jobs that are school hours and school terms only and those that are there pay barely over minimum wage. So if you were a professional and return to full time long hours your child will end up in day care or on their own. Even for teenagers this isnt considered to be ideal.

It is disingenuous for anyone to suggest that court ruling would benefit anyone apart from fathers, who having decided JOINTLY that their child/ren would be looked after by a parent, suddenly changing their minds SOLELY years later. It is yet another example of men not wanting to be accountable or to have to bear any consequences of their behaviour.

It was yet another ignorant decision from the unaccountable family courts in England and will continue to have damaging consequences for a long time to come.

Greenlanes

Think you need to read the case. Situation was that ex wife had made no effort to find work in the years since the divorce. At the appeal she was evasive about her earning capacity. Key points of the ruling were:

"The world of work has innumerable possibilities these day...vast numbers of women with children just get on with it and Mrs Wright should have done as well," the judge said.

"I do not think the children will suffer if Mrs Wright has to work, and indeed a working mother at this stage of their lives may well provide them with a good role model.

"It is possible to find work that fits in with childcare responsibilities. I reject her other reasons relating to responsibilities for animals, or trees, or housekeeping.

"Mrs Wright has made no effort whatsoever to seek work or to update her skills...I am satisfied that she has worked on the basis...that she would be supported for life.

"It is essential... that she starts to work now," said the judge, who ordered that her personal maintenance payments from her ex-husband must cease, with a gradual tailing off over a five-year period leading up to his retirement."

Spot on in my view. No doubt a barrage of negative comments will follow?

MissedTheBoatAgain I absolutely agree. The courts have for too long entrenched the idea men should be breadwinners while women are best in the home looking after the children.

On top of that, the simple truth is that decisions made while you're married simply do not hold once you've split. You're not the same unit, and you need to make sure that both new units get to see the children and earn their own money.

The dangerous bit is where the expectation is that the woman is 'entitled' to his money forever, but the reality doesn't match. The rules should be clearer, and people should know about the possible consequences of a split when they get married. Don't take yourself out of the job market on the promise that a marriage will last forever- and don't expect your OH to do that, either.

I have been trying to reach a settlement with my ex for 18 months. Similar situation to op but less money sloshing around and my kids are much younger.
My advice is don't spend too much time trying to negotiate through solicitors. It costs you a fortune and in my case achieved nothing as my ex will not budge and won't accept it should be 50:50. My parents paid my legal fees which were approx £12k. I am now representing myself and we have started mediation prior to going to court. I felt that 18 months was a waste of time and money but I naively thought we could negotiate and reach an amicable settlement. I was wrong!

smilingelizabeth

It's very difficult when they won't budge. I have just done a spreadsheet showing all our finances and how I end up so much worse over 2 years.

Sometimes I think it might be quicker to just book a court date and let a judge decide

You may be right numbrain.

You do have to do mediation before court ( in most cases) which is a pain if your ex won't budge on anything. 🙄
Good luck.

@numbbrain I feel your pain as am in the same situation but , Ex H will not compromise so I had little choice but go through the court route. It was expensive and Ihad to borrow the money to pay for it but Sol said it was the right thing to do.

@Numbbrain - I'm also in a similar position in that my STBXH thinks I'm being greedy for wanting to start negotiating at 50/50. He has simply stalled at every turn so as to not provide a CETV.

At first court hearing in March the judge ordered an actuarial report so that we can at least know how much his pension is worth, and to begin to work out what 50% of everything looks like. Lo and behold he has been "in dispute" with his solicitor ever since and is now self-representing so the 20 week timescale hasn't even started yet...

Incidentally I work full time and have assets of my own which I am fully expecting to share, he is just desperately protective of his pension. Our 2 DC are still early teens and are with me 90% of the time.

Our decree nisi was pronounced in April 2017 and we're still no closer to a settlement.

Sorry this doesn't really help with your situation, but I remember my barrister saying at the court hearing that the judge/s these days look for equality and for everyone to be self supporting once a clean break was achieved.

Oh and forgot to say, we didn't do mediation. I had to go to the mediator and explain why our case wasn't suitable (I.e STBXH wouldn't go) and pay £250 for the pleasure.

Oh, and he left me after 24 years together, 18 married, for a colleague 12 years younger.....I sound bitter, I'm not. But I refuse to not start discussions at 50/50.