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

To OP

If you involve the Courts costs can rise rapidly. However, if one party is not prepared to enter into sensible discussions or take on board any advice they have already received from their solicitors it may be the only way to bring things to a conclusion?

Good luck. My view is that the one who is upfront with disclosure and prepared to discuss sensibly will do better if the Courts become involved

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect someone with adult children to earn a living. I’m sorry you have PTSD but there is counselling and treatment that can help you so you are more able to face the world.

Very many women like myself raise our children and work - we juggle a lot of difficult responsibilities. For this I will probably be stripped of the savings that were going to see the kids through uni and a lot of my pension! My ex also had a job with a reasonable wage but seems to feel I must keep him for the rest of his days. He calls this “equality” because he “should do as well” as a stay-at-home mum.

When the wife has damaged her career opportunities by being the sahm, as agreed by both parties, then too right she is entitled to more than 50:50 as there's no way she can hope to achieve the same level as income as she would have done of she had an uninterrupted career. I really do hope that courts are not ruling any differently.

It's all very well saying get a job, but at 50+ years old with (I think op said) 18 years out of work, the earning potential is severely reduced even if the op could work 24/7. How would it be fair for the dh to swan about earning £100+ an hour while the wife is on minimum wage, and he still take unagreed amounts of equity out of the family home?

To Ferrier

The "get a job" ruling made in 2015 was correct in my view. The ex wife left the marriage with 450K debt free house. In the years since the divorce the ex wife had made no attempt to seek work, but was happy to take the 75K per year maintenance. As Judge pointed out once children are aged 7 and above there is nothing to prevent ex wife from working part time to fit around school hours.

Why should any ex partner (husband or wife) pay more in maintenance because their ex partner does not want to work or considers that what jobs they may be offered are beneath them?

My ex tried to argue that they were unable to continue with the hugely physical demands of their job as cleaner at local hotel. Judge asked how they managed to do similar work in family home, but did not get a reply.

I’m a working mum but I’m pretty sure that just by being a mum by career was damaged - certainly when the kids were younger. Male bosses tend not to promote the mothers of small children. My career did not have the trajectory of a male colleague. Still, I love the kids and wouldn’t be without them.

My ex’s career had probably more stability than he would have had without kids because bosses see men need to “support” their kids and think harder before sacking dads. Women’s work is seen as a hobby, men’s as essential.

In our case it seems to be it would be entirely fair if we each kept our own salaries and pensions and share of equity in the house. But he wants more. This is because of the claim he should have “equality”.

This is because of the claim he should have “equality”

Thought the Law was meant to be applied equally regardless of gender?

@MissedTheBoatAgain but isn’t it equal to each have what you are earning? Not more? Or do you believe in Communism?

@MissedTheBoatAgain also family law seems all about gender stereotyping. Little wife should stay home with the kids and be rewarded, man should be the breadwinner. My family “broke the mould” - both earning but me (wife) earning more. Many people apparently view this as A BAD THING, emasculating for the poor bloke. Apparently. He didn’t seem to feel too bad while living off my earnings though!

Notbeingrobbed

I agree if you are both earning a similar wage, it should be more 50-50.

I totally believe in women being able to fend for themselves. Despite my ptsd, I have worked all our marriage. The difference is I run my own business to fit in around the children, home stuff and my illness. It is a small business and I have only ever earnt 500-1000/month. I gave up my career as a college lecturer when I had my children.

My ex on the other hand moved jobs, travelled while i stayed at home, developed his career. My earning potential will increase as I develop my business but it is unlikely to get to the 100k plus that he is earning.

@numbbrain So just to play Devil’s advocate, it could be argued your business has been subsidised by income from your ex as another entrepreneur would have to earn enough to support themselves in the early stages. Do you think he might argue that?

I have no idea what the legal position is, but once somebody starts bandying words like 'greedy' around, it's time to start paying the solicitors.

'greedy' means nothing except someone's subjective opinion. It's a legal issue you have not a moral one.

Notbeingrobbed

Yes, that is one way to look at it. The way I look at it is that when we had the children, we budgeted for me to earn £500/month towards the family budget and work part time. We had 3 yr old and twin babies and child care was prohibitively expensive for me to return to my career. Plus we relocated nearer to family following his first affair.

That's why I set up my own business and actually for many years had a profitable business earning double the £500 we set. It was never an intention to work full time and earn a huge salary.

Now that the children are going to university and for the past year, I have been building the business up to provide me with a living wage.

Why should any ex partner (husband or wife) pay more in maintenance because their ex partner does not want to work or considers that what jobs they may be offered are beneath them?

Because the wife (in this case) has lost the ability to earn as much as she could have because she has x years out of the job market.
I'm not arguing for spousal maintenance btw. More for a 60:40 distribution or something (dependent on years to retirement etc) to reflect that the wife cannot earn as much as the ex.

And I don't think op doesn't want to work or considers working beneath her.
I haven't read the legal case mentioned earlier in the thread. My comments were addressing the principle, not the specific case. I agree, the wife needs to go out and work a similar number of hours to the ex.

The SM I am asking for is just 2 years to cover the mortgage payments as I cannot get a mortgage and this will cover me until I can claim a lump sum from my half of the pension to pay the mortgage off and will then have enough salary to keep myself.

Would you not just claim it as a larger share of the 'pot' rather than spousal maintenance? I believe a clean break settlement is preferred these days.

One of the options is to add it on to the pension settlement - but he is adamant I'm not having his pension if I want more than 50% of the house equity.

I am trying to find creative ways to get this clean break as quickly as possible with both of us keeping the houses we are in. Every suggestion I make to him he comes up with a reason why it can;t be done.

I think at the moment my latest proposal is for me to have 63% and he has 37%.

I am trying to find creative ways to get this clean break as quickly as possible with both of us keeping the houses we are in. Every suggestion I make to him he comes up with a reason why it can;t be done

Good that you are taking the lead and coming up with proposals. Have you both exchanged Form E's yet? One possible reason a partner may wish to drag things out is to give them more time to try and hide things?

Yes, we went through mediation and did all the form e stuff.

My personal opinion is that he has dragged it out as our youngest 2 turned 18 a couple of weeks ago. I wonder if he thinks this might sway the judge to make me sell the house.

To OP

Once children over 18 they will be adults in Law and courts likely to disregard them. Certainly did on my divorce. Only the DS aged 10 was considered relevant.

If you involve the Courts that can take time as other Legal people have posted on other threads that Courts are in turmoil and overstretched. Took almost 2 years to bring my divorce to a conclusion. A combination of aborted hearings as Ex was not complying with Court Orders and long gaps of 3 to 4 months between Hearings.

That you are attempting to settle amicably and being proactive will be looked upon favourably. In my case Judge worked out a fair capital settlement for Ex, but then subtracted almost all of my legal costs to reflect that Ex had been obstructive.

Good luck

I understand what you are saying about the children now being adults. But i still feel that although they are 18, all 3 of them will be here every holiday and through the summers for at least 5 years till their degrees are done.

It would be wholly unreasonable for dh to be on his own in a 4 bed detached and me and 3 adults in a 2 bed.

So his proposal is for 470+50 to him, whilst you have 298+24+170 + 26400 (sm capitalised) which is a straight 50:50 and that is the basis of your argument...Should it be 50:50 based on your lower earnings and his ability to rebuild, from higher earmings?

I think a judge will look at your needs...SM seems reasonable for 2 years, so what pension will you have? You may appear overhoused so could you match Ex's house cost? 4 beds for £220k? Rather than £371k

Also bear in mind a judge will ask you to look at what benefits you are entitled to and you will need a state forecast on pension. I think you are right to focus on the pension but not sure you will get it in addition to keeping the house.

You may need a pension valuation report, usually costs about £1500 but it will provide a definative proposal on the split.

Lifebegins50

We have joint assets of 1,065,000

298 house equity
640 cetv pension
50k (he took to buy a 4 bed house)
77k in ISA's and SIPPs

As he has such a high salary (85K) and bonuses yearly of 40K, I don;t think it unreasonable for me to keep the equity in the house so we can both be housed in our current houses.

Also he has pensions in addition to the 2 I am asking for half of.

I have offered for him to just pay SM for 2 years where i was going to pay off the 73k mortgage with my share of the pension.

In total I'm asking for 63% of the 1.065

I think this is quite realistic. Do you really think a judge would think this unfair.

For 220k I could only get a 2 bed house.

OP the bad news is that the CETV is a valuation of the pension for the purpose of transfer between schemes but it's not convertible into cash directly so it's not comparable with cash on a 1:1 basis.
Therefore you need to treat the pensions separately to the cash assets.

You really need to talk to your solicitor, no one here can give you the advice you need.

I know you say you have a business, I don't know if this is relevant as I've never been married, divorced or had a business. But I know you work from home. Do you need a lot of equipment for the business, or space? Does that affect the size of the house you would need?
Would moving affect the business and therefore earning potential?