What would be a fair split of assets?

[mpsssm]

My ex and I are going into mediation next week and I think I need some perspective on what is a fair split of assets
My solicitor said he cannot advise me without paying for section E forms being completed at a cost of approx 2k.... And suggested mediation as an alternative, but that relies on us making some suggestions and I am unsure of where to start.

The position is this. Married 15 years
One child of 11.
I work full time 43k (increased my hours from 4 days a week to 5 when we split)
He committed an offence which lost him his job, which paid around 23k a year. He now is only able to earn min wage in agency work which is sporadic. It was this offence that led us to split.
He is not allowed unsupervised child access as determined by SS. He has not challenged this and won't, so 100% of child care is down to me.
I was both the main bread winner and main childcare prior to splitting. He literally did two school drop offs and was around 2 evenings a week.
House is worth approx 250k with approx 150k equity.
My Cetv is 115k, his is 25k
I have 4k in the bank and no debt
He has 2k credit card debt.

We each have an old car.
No expensive items of furniture etc

He wants. 60:40 split of everything (me 60, him 40)

I just feel I've worked harder, done more child care and will have to do so in the future, it's 100% his fault we are splitting. 60:40 does not seem fair! As I say I need perspective to take the emotion out of this

Thankyou all so much for taking the time to reply to me. There are so many things I don't know.

With regard to Form E, I have provided the same financial details to the mediator in advance as are on the form, so not sure where the 2k quoted by my solicitor comes from.

I will try and get a free 30 min advice session from a solicitor.
I just feel a little overwhelmed. I'm a teacher so am trying to get as much sorted as possible in the hols as in term time I am usually very busy.

You will need to house yourself and your Dd, he won’t need to pay for housing big enough to accommodate his Dd, so that should go in your favour. And is a common reason to adjust a 50/50 starting point.

Go forward knowing that your ability to rebuild your pension will at least mean it only has to support you, not this waste of space.

Good luck OP.

My mortgage company will only lend me an additional 45k based on my income (I may drop back to my 4 day a week role in September as my employer could not guarantee 5 days beyond then. Teacher pay is no longer portable so a 5 day a week teaching job in another school may not pau me as much as I am the top of my pay scale.)

We are in a fixed term mortgage and will lose 4.5k if we sell before May 2023.

@FutureExH

I don't know how the poster reached that conclusion but I suspect they're about right. See my post above and you'll see how I came to a 52:48 split in the OP's favour for my reasoning.

A court would essentially look first at the needs of the child then at the needs of the weaker financial party. Once the needs of the child are met then it is possible to consider the needs of the STBXH.

In this case, it should be possible for the OP to lose £70k in equity in the house but remortgage to keep the FMH (meeting both child's and weaker financial party's housing needs); pensions are irrelevant to child so 50/50 split; cash is barely material but all debts and savings shared so net off and split 50/50.

FutureExH these threads are always full of people who have no legal expertise and confidently give the OP potentially life changing advice based on their assumptions about what the law would do and their own experience of what happened in their own case. Those posters who do have legal expertise don't usually give specific advice because they're only too aware that a thread like this only scratches the surface and it would be negligent to give advice on such information. It would be prudent for people advising the OP to be clear if they are not a lawyer (as many PPs have) and are simply giving a view that is based on what they think would be right.

FWIW a friend of mine was in a situation in which her ex-H was sacked, barred from his profession and unable to see the children unsupervised as a direct result of the nature of his offences (perhaps the case here too). She obtained considerably more than 50% of the assets, including all of the equity in the house. Of course it all depends on individual circumstances so I am not suggesting it could be straightforwardly applied here but it's clearly an unusual situation and the OP would really benefit from a stronger view from a professional who knows the facts.

The other 'variable' to conjure with is the timing -- you've already mentioned what I assume is a mortgage redemption penalty applying till May 2023. So as well as thinking about the split, also think about WHEN it will happen.

Not really relevant I'm afraid. £45k is your earning capacity, which is not necessarily the same as what you are earning.

Look at it from the court's point of view. They could make a decision that disadvantages the weaker financial party only for you to take a new job working five days a week that gets you back up to the top of the pay band within a year or two.

What I think they'll do in your case and consider it a minor blip from a long term perspective. Maybe they might award you a little more equity and take away more of your pension to offset it but I think they would be loath to do it because this wouldn't meet the housing needs of the weaker party when there was an avenue to do so.

They're going into mediation, not court. Mediators are - generally - not trained lawyers. The OP wants a suitable position to take with a mediator. If you read my posts carefully you will see that when I talk about what a court would do, I only discuss the principles they will follow, not outcomes. When I talk about outcomes, I'm talking in practical and not legal terms for the sake of mediation. For the record, I'm a financial planner and not a solicitor but it means I've seen a lot of divorce cases and how they turn out.

Also, your anecdotal evidence is exceptionally rare, where the conduct of the parties is considered in ancillary relief but more importantly you don't give us the financial situation of that case which means it might not be similar at all. For example, there might have been much less equity in the house which means remortgaging might not be an option for the stronger financial party.

Because the assets are not massive try very hard to get an agreed settlement because going to court could make a big hole in the money you get.
Make sure you get a final settlement so that he cannot come back later, 60 40 and no comeback may be close to the deal.

Thankyou again to everyone
Yes the assets are fairly small hence why I want to resolve without court.

I also really need the objective views you are giving, because emotionally it seems so unfair.

60:40 seems like it is a good deal then.

Future ExH My main concern is posters who come in and tell the OP that, as the PP I quoted said, 'if it goes to court it will be 50/50 pretty sure'. That gives a false and simplistic impression of the law that is very unlikely to apply in this sort of situation in which all concerned are agreed that the OP will be the child's only carer. Of course very few people go to court but knowing what a court is likely to do is helpful for setting parameters for negotiation. Also, understanding the different orders that can be made in court is helpful for thinking what kinds of solutions might be available (especially as I assume they will be looking to get a consent order and must if pension sharing is involved).

The anecdote about the friend (which I said could not be applied directly and depended on individual circumstances) is to illustrate the way in which 50:50 does not apply in many cases and could be departed from radically in cases in which the child's needs were being met by one parent as is the case here. I can't remember the exact situation there, and wouldn't post it on the internet anyway, but it was a much higher amount of equity and broadly she had 80+% of the assets with the focus on keeping the children in a secure home.

I wouldn't give the OP detailed advice but would say that she should have a very clear idea of what it will take for her to keep a secure home for her and her DC, especially as a £250k is not an extravagant house in most parts of the country. If I were the OP I would be taking advice on what I could do to achieve that and it would be key in my negotiating position. I have to say that I wouldn't be suggesting a counter proposal for mediation that leaves her with a 52:48 split (when he is propsing 60:40) and unable to keep the home.

OP I think you also need to revisit the paying £250 for him to visit the DC, that's going to be difficult to maintain.

I'm amazed at so many people saying 50/50 or thereabouts. Please see a solicitor as I'd be going for a far larger proportion - you're providing for your child.

Do your homework regarding your solicitor. My first solicitor was awful and wouldn't fight my corner in getting the best possible deal . It was a costly mistake but my second 2nd solicitor was absolutely brilliant. She was very honest and realistic with me and I trusted her . I would pay a bit extra for a good solicitor first time otherwise it will cost you in the long run.

Get a good solicitor - if your local area has a big women's facebook group then that's a good place to ask. Your current one doesn't sound helpful.

What I would say (with absolutely no legal experience, training or insight at all) is this: short term pain for long term gain. By which I mean, you won't see a penny of maintenance from him so think of this as a 'one and done' thing - you're paying to get him out of your life. In the same vein, taking a hit on the house while preserving your pension isn't the worst-case scenario.

@Mia85

Future ExH My main concern is posters who come in and tell the OP that, as the PP I quoted said, 'if it goes to court it will be 50/50 pretty sure'. That gives a false and simplistic impression of the law that is very unlikely to apply in this sort of situation in which all concerned are agreed that the OP will be the child's only carer. Of course very few people go to court but knowing what a court is likely to do is helpful for setting parameters for negotiation. Also, understanding the different orders that can be made in court is helpful for thinking what kinds of solutions might be available (especially as I assume they will be looking to get a consent order and must if pension sharing is involved).

The anecdote about the friend (which I said could not be applied directly and depended on individual circumstances) is to illustrate the way in which 50:50 does not apply in many cases and could be departed from radically in cases in which the child's needs were being met by one parent as is the case here. I can't remember the exact situation there, and wouldn't post it on the internet anyway, but it was a much higher amount of equity and broadly she had 80+% of the assets with the focus on keeping the children in a secure home.

I wouldn't give the OP detailed advice but would say that she should have a very clear idea of what it will take for her to keep a secure home for her and her DC, especially as a £250k is not an extravagant house in most parts of the country. If I were the OP I would be taking advice on what I could do to achieve that and it would be key in my negotiating position. I have to say that I wouldn't be suggesting a counter proposal for mediation that leaves her with a 52:48 split (when he is propsing 60:40) and unable to keep the home.

OP I think you also need to revisit the paying £250 for him to visit the DC, that's going to be difficult to maintain.

No, fair enough and I've seen various posts varying between 50/50 and 60/40 with no logic behind it. 60/40 doesn't sound plausible at all to me because it would leave the OP forced to move house with a child when a small tilt of assets back in their favour could keep the child stable and there's a pension that can be split to make them equal if it got to court and a judge felt that was fair.

This is the problem though and why as you say solicitors are loath to call it. It's not just because they won't have all the facts on a forum like this. It's because Family Law outcomes in a court are unpredictable. The courts follow some principles but it would not be hugely difficult to use those principles to come up with vastly different outcomes. A court could do anything from concluding the OP is overhoused and can downsize to give the STBXH a 60/40 split of assets to meet the needs of the child and the financially weaker party to awarding the OP the entire equity because the exceptional circumstances rule applies because of the STBXH's conduct. Go ahead and play the lottery.

I think a better way to prepare for mediation is to first consider the needs of the child and then to consider what is fair and reasonable to the weaker financial party. In so doing I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion that the OP should focus on the housing needs of the child but after that there will be the issue of the needs generated by marriage of the STBXH and these cannot be dismissed.

My suggestion (financial planner hat now) is:

1. Work out what the maximum mortgage is that the OP can take on by themselves factoring in any anticipated drop in income. Take that figure from the current value of the house and see how much equity is required to take over the FMH in sole name. Add £10k for breathing space in the negotiation. You can look like you're compromising. Also, you can point out if he doesn't agree the house might have to be sold and his share would be net of sale costs and then stamp duty etc. on new properties and your needs might be greater for these costs if you have to move more stuff or pay higher stamp duty.

2. Be prepared to use the pension to offset getting more equity, but try and keep the following depending on age:

At 30: 1 times salary
At 40: 3 times salary
At 50: 5 times salary

3. Accept the savings are small and will probably be offset against the debts. Starting position should be you pay off half his debts and then you can look magnanimous by saying net £1k each.

@FutureExH
Your plan of action seems really logical to me. I have some free legal advice with my union, which I have only just twigged covers personal matters so I will contact them

The other complicating factor is childcare
I have been really lucky in that my parents provide this. I can't claim anything off my ex for this as they don't officially charge me anything, however I will buy their weekly shop some weeks or take them out. Most recently due to covid they have developed a taste for take aways from a local restaurant so I get them at least one a week. This makes my bank statements rather embarrassing when it's just eat at least 5 times a month!

[quote mpsssm]@FutureExH
Your plan of action seems really logical to me. I have some free legal advice with my union, which I have only just twigged covers personal matters so I will contact them

The other complicating factor is childcare
I have been really lucky in that my parents provide this. I can't claim anything off my ex for this as they don't officially charge me anything, however I will buy their weekly shop some weeks or take them out. Most recently due to covid they have developed a taste for take aways from a local restaurant so I get them at least one a week. This makes my bank statements rather embarrassing when it's just eat at least 5 times a month![/quote]
Hmm, that's not great if you're applying for a bigger mortgage and the bank or building society are assessing your affordability. Could your parents forego the takeaways for 3 or 4 months?

Also, great news on the legal advice. They'll be able to give you a much better idea of best and worst case outcomes.

Please do get advice from another solicitor.

I think a good starting point is working out what you would need to be able to keep your child's home?

My SIL had to go to court in her divorce and the judge agreed that she could keep the house and all the equity as she needed to house the children.

I know other people where the ex has had to keep paying the mortgage until the children left full time education as well as many other variables that weren't 50:50 or 60:40.