What do you think the settlement should be?

[KittyRae]

Married 10 years. 2 primary age kids. Both have always worked full time. Husband earns £45k, wife earns £125k. Assets of £1.2 million (including house worth £700k with mortgage of £100k left).

What do you think?

who will the children live with? I would guess sell the house and split 50:50, or one partner stays in the house with children, and buys the other partner out?

Should have said - children 50-50

Asset split of 50% then. House and mortgage split of 50%.

The fact he earns less doesn't matter to me. What makes the difference is if one person's career has been impacted to a large extent due to having children, while the other carried on more or less as before.

50/50

I would say though that if neither's pension had been negatively impacted by the marriage then the lower earner shouldn't really ask for part of the higher earner's.

I mean I think technically they can, but I think if there's been no negative impact on earnings and pension contributions from kids/marriage, then it's pushing it a bit.

Assuming they live in an area where 600K will allow both parties to buy a property big enough for them to house themselves and DC then I can't see any reason to go for anything other than a 50:50 split of all assets

It depends. Did you both contribute equally towards your assets? Did one person bring significantly more (financially) to the relationship? Do you both have equal earning potential/pension in the future?

Wife contributes more financially (around 80%). Twice took maternity leave and her position is she did more of the childcare (though husband says it was always 50-50). Her earning potential is higher. He has chosen a career he enjoys but is less well paid. His pension is worth more than hers (pensions not included in the £1.2m).

I think the value of pensions is always included, so the wife might get a higher proportion of the house to offset his better pension?

Think it would depend on whether both parties are able to secure property with 600k each. If not, lower earner should probably get a larger share of assets due to the fact higher earner wil be able to secure a bigger mortgage. Keep their own pensions. Both have worked full time so neither has sacrificed their career due to children.

550k ish each I mean ( less the outstanding mortgage amount )

Depends on a few things. Some had already been said. How was the house bought? Did anyone put a large deposit into the mortgage?

re salary differences, it’s not always cut and dried. I’m now on about a quarter of what DH earns. But I have always been the main carer and basically have followed him around the country so he could progress his career, putting mine at a huge disadvantage. I’ve taken term time only jobs so he didn’t have to use his annual leave for childcare. Taken them to 90% of appointments. The children have been at an advantage socially and academically because I’ve been more available to them. I work my socks off but it’s in education and it’s never going to pay me what I SHOULD be paid for the work I do. “Overtime” is simply unpaid. I work for free. DH can claim paid overtime. He can get a (small) bonus if his hard work is recognised. I get genuine heartfelt thanks and some flowers or chocolates now and again.

DH pays all the bills. I pay for my own expenses and family holidays. I paid off our mortgage with a large inheritance.

In an imaginary divorce scenario if he tried to claim that we couldn’t have an equal share settlement I would be shocked. People who work in essential jobs such as education shouldn’t be at a disadvantage in a divorce settlement because they earn far less than if they’d gone into something different where earnings potential was much greater. We would have no education system left. Same with healthcare and healthcare assistants etc.

you have to look at many factors.

She earns nearly 3x more than him but his pension is worth more?

I don’t think the value of pensions should be taken into it too much when it’s only 10 years of marriage.

I'm guessing he's maybe in teaching or something with an index linked pension. He may even have a final salary scheme, depending on his age and how long he's been paying in

Pensions are included and then a 50/50 split. The assets can be off set against the pensions.

then as childcare is 50/50 there will be no msintenance

Yes, he is in something like that. She’s self-employed and has a private pension.

What do they want. Why is a simple 50/50 (which should leave enough to re home) not feasible.

or does he want more to get a better housing option

He wouldn't be able to buy as big a house as her with his half , he has less borrowing power if he needs a mortgage.

What have the solicitors suggested would be a fair settlement?

Her solicitor says 50-50. She would be happy for him to have a bit more to help him rehouse (so maybe 55-45) plus he keeps his bigger pension. He wants quite a bit more plus spousal maintenance but he hasn’t said how much yet.

Sorry, misposted will start a new thread

50:50
no spousal

his needs net thriugh asset split and if wants more income can chose higher pays carreer

V unlikely to get spousal - it’s need based and he doesn’t need it