Advice on fair split

[onlyconnect]

I am getting divorced, aiming for there to be no solicitors involved. Could anyone look this over and suggest a ballpark fair split of equity between person A and person B please?

Both partners have put all of what they earn into the family home and life. The property will be sold and the equity split:

Person A
earns £42,000 pa
put £150,000 of inherited money into property during the relationship
has £250,000 pension pot
is providing main home for the two children. Parent B will be in a separate town an hour away

Person B
earns £105,000 pa
has £60,000 pension pot
will see the children and provide a second home for them

The amount of equity on total will factor in. Both parties need to adequately housed, baring in mind the income differential (was this down to time out rearing children?) a having a larger share of equity but waiving spousal support (child support not affected) seems fair, if the numbers stack up I would suggest a gets to keep the 150k tgen the remaining equity is split 50:50

There's not really enough information there, but my first thought is...

Person A takes from the proceeds of sale the £150k they put in, plus a proportion of "interest" based on the change in property value.

Both parties take whatever else they contributed to the deposit, adjusted in the same way based on the change in property value.

Remaining equity is split according to their relative mortgage contributions over the course of ownership.

Any maintenance for the children would have to be based on proportion of time spent at each home.

Thank you both. Oh know it's thin information so I appreciate your comments

Worth bearing in mind - the pension pots should only be a consideration if the reason that B has less in their pension is that they had to shoulder more than their share of the bills etc for the sake of the family and their pension contributions took the brunt of it. If that were the case, and I was A, I'd probably offer something like £15-20k of the property equity as a lump sum to make up for it and see where the conversation goes from there.

Of course, that's not the case if it was just extremely poor financial planning on their part.

It was poor planning on B's part. A tried to encourage B to take out a pension.

Fair enough - if the pension pots come into it, then it may be worth it for A to be prepared for a bit of tension on that point. Or maybe even be prepared to make a token gesture towards it - I've no idea how much equity there is, but giving up a few grand for the sake of a smooth negotiation could still be worth it in the long run.

Ultimately, a good negotiation is one where nobody comes out completely happy, so I guess it comes down to each party working out which battles they're willing to lose a bit of ground on. My personal perspective would be that as long as nobody comes out the other end feeling like they've been totally taken for a ride, it's an overall win relative to getting the lawyers involved.

Good luck with it - genuinely hope it goes as smoothly as it can.

Thank you xyHere.
The equity total is about £490,000
The pension has so far not been taken into account but B feels sore about that and wants 50% of everything including the pension but not taking any account of A's inheritance.

A and B agreed to split equity 50-50 with B paying A child maintenance as well.
A feels ok about it but B is unhappy because of the pension.

How much are suitable 3 bed properties in the respective locations?

B also has much more that they can put into a pension going forward(and likely will if they realise it impacts their Maintenance payments also)

wobytide person A wants to get a mortgage and buy for about £390,000. That is the price for three bedrooms and parking in the area near the younger child's school.

How long was the marriage?
from a pure legal perspective if long then the inheritance is in the marital point as it’s part of the marital home and that should be split as well as pension pot

if a had primary care of children overall asset split could be adjusted slightly upwards but a should not get to keep the 150k and all pension pot

The relationship was 23 years long, the marriage only 3 years long.
At the moment it's been agreed that there's a 50-50 split of equity ( no account taken of inheritance) but the pension has not been included.
A is ok with that. B is unhappy and wants a share of the pension.
B is also paying maintenance to A

B probably is entitled to some of the pension but a could probably argue against that based on

lower salary
b ability to increase pension contributions over time to build up own pot
a having children predominantly

You could always suggest that A waives their claim on the inheritance (although I'm not sure this would be allowed by solicitor as it may be seen as family money) if B waives their claim on the pension?

When I divorced, ex had a pension fund bigger than mine at the time. Our divorce was rejected by the judge as he felt I should have claimed on ex's pension but once we explained that he wasn't claiming on mine and I was getting much more equity from the house he OK'd the financial side. Turns out that my pension will actually be worth much more than ex's in the long run anyway so I will be better off without him having a claim on it. (or something like that - it was 7 years ago and my memory is hazy of that traumatic time!)

Divorce is primarily based on need, not fairness. If divorce was fair, there would be far fewer weaker financial parties keeping the family home, receiving a sizeable chunk of their ex's pension or receiving maintenance unless they could prove that they were disadvantaged by the relationship. However, in needs cases in the division of assets the law really makes no distinction between a weaker financial party who gave up or went part time in their professional career and someone who couldn't be bothered to have a career despite having the opportunity (for added silliness, the person who gave up a professional career is normally expected to just get on with getting a job, whereas if the ex spouse was either lazy or incompetent they have a reasonable chance of getting maintenance for a few years).

The reason is because it's based on need. The court will make a division that first prioritises the welfare of any children and then ensures both parties can house themselves and afford the basics. Anything after that might allow for some fairness based on actual contributions, but before then it is based on need.

Person B not putting as much into pension would have meant they contributed more 'free' cash into the marriage so I don't think that's particularly relevant.

You would be really foolish to do this without a solicitor's advice.

I think B could be entitled to some of A’s pension although A could argue B is on a large salary and will be able to build up their pension. How old are A and B?