Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Divorce/separation

Here you'll find divorce help and support from other Mners. For legal advice, you may find Advice Now guides useful.

Original poster

Shortish second marriage - no kids, different assets

29 replies

PiersMoron · 25/04/2023 07:05

Hi there.

I know most divorces take 50/50 as a starting point, but is this likely to be very different for second marriages where there are no children between the divorcing parties; the children from previous marriages are grown up, the marriage has lasted 4 years and there was a difference in assets brought to the marriage?

Partner A already owned the house which partner B moved into to 2 years prior to the marriage. House has around £600k - £650k equity. Partner A is professional, earns around £100k per annum and has large final salary pension. They have paid the mortgage and all bills associated with house - council tax, utilities, insurance etc. also paid for holidays for the couple and home improvements.

Partner B works part time and earns under £15k per annum. Contributed to food bills during co- habitation / marriage, but nothing else. Has around £150k left from a previous marriage settlement in investments, but nothing else in assets. £150k will not be enough to re-house partner B. No pension.
Both now mid 50s.

how is this likely to play out? Partner B’s starting point is that they want partner A to sell their house and give them enough money (£150k) that partner B can buy a small property (around £300k) outright. Also wants a pension sharing order.

However partner A wants both parties to leave with the assets that they entered the marriage with, and will not consider selling their home, nor sharing their pension.

thanks in advance

OP posts:
millymollymoomoo · 25/04/2023 08:19

Shirt marriage
no joint dependents
no joint building of assets

likely to be essentially put back to what was brought to marriage or near that

Doggymummar · 25/04/2023 08:21

I divorced after a similar time and neither got anything or if you like we left with what we came in with. I owned my house prior and I didn't have to split it.

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 25/04/2023 08:25

Don't know from a legal perspective, but morally, I don't think Partner B should ve entitled to anything.

Is there a reason why B only works part time and earns so little?

divorceadviceneeded · 25/04/2023 08:38

How much equity has built up in the house since the marriage/co habitation?

YetMoreNewBeginnings · 25/04/2023 08:41

Where are they? Different parts of the uk, assuming they’re uk, can have very different takes on things.

arethereanyleftatall · 25/04/2023 08:49

Partner A was very silly to get married in these circumstances.

arethereanyleftatall · 25/04/2023 08:52

The only way partner B should be entitled to more I guess is if they took on the housekeeping role as a joint decision for a better quality of life for the two of them and that's why they only worked part time. It's fair to be recompensed for that I guess. Although they did already benefit from the free house etc. anyway, I dunno.

FamilyCourt · 25/04/2023 09:02

Partner A was an idiot and partner B is money grabbing...no kids to look after, lump sum asset and no contribution to the home. I think if I were partner A I would offer them 50k to f-off and be done.

Skankoot · 25/04/2023 09:22

how is this likely to play out? Partner B’s starting point is that they want partner A to sell their house and give them enough money (£150k) that partner B can buy a small property (around £300k) outright. Also wants a pension sharing order. However partner A wants both parties to leave with the assets that they entered the marriage with, and will not consider selling their home, nor sharing their pension.

I'd imagine for such a short marriage it'll be more likely to go the way partner A is wanting.

Partner B has essentially paid rent but only then living costs. They haven't really contributed to the house or pension.

Original poster
PiersMoron · 25/04/2023 10:05

They are in the South of England but not sure location makes a difference?

It’s the choice of Partner B to work part time and they could work more and earn more but prefer to be self employed doing something they love rather than have paid employment.

During the course of the relationship the equity has probably increased by around £150k.

They are poles apart on what they believe is fair. Wouldn’t a court/ judge (if it gets that far) want both parties to have a secure home if there is money available to house both?

OP posts:
millymollymoomoo · 25/04/2023 10:07

A judge is likely to set them back to how they arrived into the marriage

b van and should work full time too and it’s not down to A to compensate for that and less assets

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 25/04/2023 10:37

PiersMoron · 25/04/2023 10:05

They are in the South of England but not sure location makes a difference?

It’s the choice of Partner B to work part time and they could work more and earn more but prefer to be self employed doing something they love rather than have paid employment.

During the course of the relationship the equity has probably increased by around £150k.

They are poles apart on what they believe is fair. Wouldn’t a court/ judge (if it gets that far) want both parties to have a secure home if there is money available to house both?

I don't know what a judge would think.

But morally, if B could work and earn more, but chooses not to, then they have no right to expect A to subsidise that choice after the marriage is over. They don't have to buy... they can rent?

B sounds incredibly entitled.

UmbrellaCinderella · 25/04/2023 10:44

arethereanyleftatall · 25/04/2023 08:49

Partner A was very silly to get married in these circumstances.

This.

And partner B is behaving appallingly.

Fortunately with a short marriage and no joint children the likely outcome should be that both parties leave the marriage with what they started with plus a share of any wealth accrued in the meantime, but that also taking into account who accrued that wealth i.e. no reason partner B should be able to force partner A to sell their house or pension share. Unbelievable grabbiness to even suggest that, frankly.

arethereanyleftatall · 25/04/2023 10:53

'Wouldn’t a court/ judge (if it gets that far) want both parties to have a secure home if there is money available to house both?'

I expect that only applies where there is children's needs to consider. There isn't here. A full time job and renting are available.

Soontobe60 · 25/04/2023 10:54

PiersMoron · 25/04/2023 10:05

They are in the South of England but not sure location makes a difference?

It’s the choice of Partner B to work part time and they could work more and earn more but prefer to be self employed doing something they love rather than have paid employment.

During the course of the relationship the equity has probably increased by around £150k.

They are poles apart on what they believe is fair. Wouldn’t a court/ judge (if it gets that far) want both parties to have a secure home if there is money available to house both?

B has enough money to pay a decent deposit for a 1 bed flat, can up their earnings by working full time to enable them to get a small mortgage.
A is stupid for not ringfencing his assets. B is grabby by expecting A to find their hobby/job for 6 years. They have benefitted massively by not having any living expenses, free holidays etc to the tune of perhaps £1500 a month x 6 years which comes to over £100k!

Doggymummar · 25/04/2023 11:00

PiersMoron · 25/04/2023 10:05

They are in the South of England but not sure location makes a difference?

It’s the choice of Partner B to work part time and they could work more and earn more but prefer to be self employed doing something they love rather than have paid employment.

During the course of the relationship the equity has probably increased by around £150k.

They are poles apart on what they believe is fair. Wouldn’t a court/ judge (if it gets that far) want both parties to have a secure home if there is money available to house both?

Not if that wasn't the starting point. No they are both adults and made decisions that got them where they are now

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 25/04/2023 11:01

A full time job and renting are available.

Exactly. Or moving to a different part of the country where £150k would be adequate to house one person comfortably. It isn't as if they have to stay in the SE for work purposes as they could get a minimum wage job anywhere.

Ramunea · 25/04/2023 11:04

I think partner A is correct.

Partner B seems content with working part time on a low wage and clearly didn’t feel it was necessary to have their own assets. Why on earth should Partner B expect half of Partner A’s assists when Partner B came into the relationship with nothing?

LivingDeadGirlUK · 25/04/2023 11:08

I would expect a judge to set things back to how they were pre marriage, so like Partner A is suggesting.

Forcing partner A to sell their house when there are no children involved, partner B has a large chunk of savings, and has the option to rent is not likely. It's also bloody unethical!

BarelyLiterate · 25/04/2023 11:14

Partner A was incredibly naive & stupid to marry partner B. It sounds to me like partner B is a gold digger who is trying to take partner A to the cleaners. And I make no assumptions about the gender of either partner.

BanditsOnTheHorizon · 25/04/2023 11:15

4 years isn't a particularly short marriage but it's unlikely it'll be 50/50, but sounds like both will leave the marriage with enough to house themselves.

Pensions will only be what's amassed during the marriage and if the house was already paid off before the marriage it's unlikely to go into the pot, the 150k was brought into the marriage so again unlikely to be taken into consideration

My guess would be you take what your brought and no splitting of assets

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 25/04/2023 11:16

BarelyLiterate · 25/04/2023 11:14

Partner A was incredibly naive & stupid to marry partner B. It sounds to me like partner B is a gold digger who is trying to take partner A to the cleaners. And I make no assumptions about the gender of either partner.

Agree. B is incredibly entitled and lazy. Wouldn't we all like to work a little part-time hobby job?

B needs to get a job and rent a flat. They don't automatically get a house at A's expense.

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 25/04/2023 11:21

I agree with the gold digger comment. It's so greedy to expect a big payout when you haven't contributed in any way to earning that wealth.

And yes, A made a huge mistake in getting married in the first place. A friend of mine is currently very unhappy that her partner won't marry her (both have grown up children from previous marriages but no shared kids) but I can completely see it from his point of view...he only stands to lose if he gets married.

MichelleScarn · 25/04/2023 11:24

Is partner Bs money grabbing, lazy self indulgentness the reason for the marriage ending?
Hopefully they'll get nothing!

Skankoot · 25/04/2023 12:33

Are you one of these people OP?