Division of assetts what happens in court?

[mia1972]

So,
I am trying to figure out what is likely to happen to me as my divorce has started and it’s not looking like it’s going to be an easy ride.

I am earning more money and - against my will - i have been forced to take the rains ans in the last 3 years become the main earner. He refused to go back to work. For a number of reasons.

He says he can’t get a mortgage and that therefore he will have a higher % of the assetts. I say that he won’t necessarily need a mortgage as he will be able to clear from half of the sale of the house enough to buy him a small 3 bed without a mortgage (of course he wants a bigger house).

I’m curious about this: my colleague did research with family court judges 3-5 years ago and when interviewed that they said 99.99% of cases end up 50/50 split.

What are people experiences of this, I read quite a few threads where people said they split assetts differently. Are those cases agreed with lawyers / mediation or in court?

Many thanks

I got more than 50% - that's a starting point. Although if he can house himself with 50% then that may be fine. What about pensions, savings, cars, investments?

My divorce went to court, final hearing, 5 years ago, for reference.

It depends on housing needs, but if you are in England then 50/50 is the starting point.

If there are children then his housing needs will need to cover housing for them. Ages for both parties are a factor. Have you taken legal advice?

In England it’s based on needs more wants but will depend on factors such as

Earnings
Potential future earnings
Assets available
Length of marriage
Ages of children and residency
Ages of parties

So courts will look at what each party needs ( equal does not mean the same) many divorces are split differently to 50:50

Ok we are going to have children 50/50 although I may end up with a little more as my littlest is 4 and I don’t think she’ll cope with lout me for 50% of the time.

He will 100% be expected to get a job. And there will be some assumption that it should be in the same sector he was in before, so you can use that as a starting point for his income. If he's chosen to not work then it'll be lack of wage slip history rather than his salary that will prevent him getting a mortgage. He's a fool to think he'll automatically get a bigger share because he won't get a job.

Can you share the reasons he's not working?

The only people who ever get more than they deserve out of divorce are people who never had a career and then have children. For some strange reason the courts often decide that rather than put them in the position they would have been in had they not married someone harder working (plus enough extra money so that they can provide their share of childcare adequately until they leave home), these people often end up with such a large share of the current assets that they are often better off than the higher earning spouse even when the children are grown up. For example, had my STBXW never met me, she would probably be earning about £20k and either renting with friends or living with her parents. She had and has zero prospect of becoming a homeowner in her own right not because of any decisions made during the marriage but because she chose not to get any qualifications and chose to be a job hopper with large gaps inbetween throughout her 20s. Nevertheless, she will probably be handed 90% of the home equity immediately or be allowed to live in my house for the next 14 years whilst I have to rent upon which time she will get around 70% of the equity and will have better prospects of owning property than me for the rest of her life.

This won't however apply to your ex-husband because unlike my STBXW, he did have a career and he will be expected to go back to it. His needs will not be assessed based on how much he does earn but how much he can earn.

Unfortunately, if you do get stuck with someone like my STBXW then the earning potential of the lower earning spouse is exceptionally low and they have no prospect of housing themselves without some serious sponging off their harder working ex. This is because family law is still based on the 1950s nuclear family when SAHPs actually had to contribute and make sacrifices a lot more than they do now and had little prospect of a decent paid job after divorce. As modern technology has shrunk the time taken to do housework and both parents in the workplace have become the norm, the law has only partially kept up.

@FutureExH

The only people who ever get more than they deserve out of divorce are people who never had a career and then have children. For some strange reason the courts often decide that rather than put them in the position they would have been in had they not married someone harder working (plus enough extra money so that they can provide their share of childcare adequately until they leave home), these people often end up with such a large share of the current assets that they are often better off than the higher earning spouse even when the children are grown up. For example, had my STBXW never met me, she would probably be earning about £20k and either renting with friends or living with her parents. She had and has zero prospect of becoming a homeowner in her own right not because of any decisions made during the marriage but because she chose not to get any qualifications and chose to be a job hopper with large gaps inbetween throughout her 20s. Nevertheless, she will probably be handed 90% of the home equity immediately or be allowed to live in my house for the next 14 years whilst I have to rent upon which time she will get around 70% of the equity and will have better prospects of owning property than me for the rest of her life.

This won't however apply to your ex-husband because unlike my STBXW, he did have a career and he will be expected to go back to it. His needs will not be assessed based on how much he does earn but how much he can earn.

Unfortunately, if you do get stuck with someone like my STBXW then the earning potential of the lower earning spouse is exceptionally low and they have no prospect of housing themselves without some serious sponging off their harder working ex. This is because family law is still based on the 1950s nuclear family when SAHPs actually had to contribute and make sacrifices a lot more than they do now and had little prospect of a decent paid job after divorce. As modern technology has shrunk the time taken to do housework and both parents in the workplace have become the norm, the law has only partially kept up.

I think you have a bit of an axe to grind there 😂

None of what you say applied to me.

@BatshitCrazyWoman

You could say that!

I just think it's a bit outrageous that I'd actually be better off if I had married someone who gave up a career rather than someone who lived off me from day 1 because a person with a career would be expected to go and get a proper job and have their earning capacity assumed on that rather than some kind of minimum wage, low stress McJob. Unfortunately if you marry a loser, they tend to have needs that they are incapable of ever meeting through their own endeavours and you get screwed!