Spousal support

[Captain1]

Anyone have experience of this?

my understanding was it is there to enable a spouse to get back to a place where they are able to support themselves.

in my situation my spouse thinks she should get it as I earn around £150k she earns around £40k. She will get roughly £500k in cash for the divorce with no children involved . hence I believe she is “self sufficient “/able to buy a new house outright had a decent pension and earns more than enough to support herself.

in contrast I will get £200k cash (and keep £300k pension) so will need more to catch up with housing etc.

thoughts?

She won’t get it
no dependent children
decent imcome
large capital settlement provides for her needs

it will get thrown out

How long have you been married for and what are your ages?

I can’t imagine she’ll get any spousal support if you have no kids and she earns £40k

23 years married aged 47/50.

Sorry there are “children” but all over 18.

Your last post could change things OP as your wife could argue she lost out on earning potential raising kids and supporting your career.

Spousal maintenance IS still a thing, even on a salary like that. It’s not as common, granted, but it does exist. (I speak from experience)

Suggest you discuss carefully with solicitor. She may want a higher cash settlement for a clean break in place of ongoing spousal support?

She may get some. I did. Similar situation.

There us enough assets to provide for needs
she might get more assets eg 60:40 but I highly doubt soousal

whats she’s expecting and for how long?

Someone I know got a decent amount of spousal support. They had 2 much younger children and it was limited to 2 years

You glossed over her pension value. Is it included in 500k and if not is it equal to yours?

Sorry it was more of a general question than individual circumstances.

its actually more like : her £450k cash and £120k pension and me £320k pension and £250k cash (basically 50% across the board approximately)

But things like spousal maintenance depend very much on individual circumstances. How long was she not working? What’s her pension like etc?

if your partner did the bulk of the kids stuff, whilst you focused on your career, then that split is unreasonable.

So you each get 500 k assets but you think that's fine because you have 4x the income? NO. I'd say five years maintenance, decreasing term (50-40-30-20-10).

time bound spousal is usually to help someone get a job, restabllish a career, move from part time to full time etc, bashcally to get bsvk of their feet. This is not the case here and not needed as based in assets available, his ex earnings, and no dependent children she is not bound by constraints on her hours/career etc currently

op should look at slightly higher capital settlement to offset a spousal claim if necessary IF op Ed did take time out etc to raise children.

op what is she asking for and his long and on what basis ?

She’s not asked for it yet just raised the possibility after a chat with her solicitor. She’s suggested mediation which I’ve agreed to although she insisted I pay for it! 😂

She should get more capital or spousal because she earns less and consequently has a smaller pension and less borrowing power. The court will prefer that she gets the payout in a capitalised form. More equity than you are offering.

I wouldn’t laugh. You are the one who needs to get this resolved in mediation because a judge will laugh at your plan to keep 50% of the assets. You do have a lot to lose maybe not as spousal support but probably as capital or pension share.

My DH had to pay his wife spousal maintenance, less than £10 years ago!

No children & she worked part-time by choice!

No way will she get spousal support if kids are over 18.

I did.

False.

It DEFINITELY happens even with no dependents at home.

I'm a trainee solicitor and I've got some experience of family law in the South East of England. From my limited experience in practice, spousal maintenance could apply in this case but it's quite unlikely and it would probably depend on facts applying in the OP's case that haven't been disclosed here thus far. It's important to consider that judges have a very wide discretion in the family court and outcomes will turn on the facts.

First of all, those who have posted about "sacrificing a career" are talking about the compensation principle. This is very rarely applied in practice because most cases are "needs" based and there are not enough assets to compensate anyone. Also, it only really applies where the weaker financial party can demonstrate that they sacrificed a professional career and it's apparently not something that is seen often in practice and it's very hard to prove. So, in all likelihood if spousal maintenance is to apply in this case, it will be based on needs.

Nowadays, needs is "generously interpreted" but only to alleviate "undue hardship." So on the bare facts alone a party with £500k in assets, hardly any mortgage and a £40k income is unlikely to be considered to be facing "undue hardship" especially when it is taken into account that the other party will have a much bigger mortgage when interest rates are high. This is why in my limited experience I would be looking for other factors in the case such as a disabled dependent child, parties a bit closer to retirement, few assets but a high income or a genuine compensation case to say SM was likely. I suspect those posting that they did get it have some other factor such as the above in their case.

There are regional differences though and the best course of action is to get legal advice from a solicitor familiar with the court your case will be processed in. I wouldn't agree to spousal maintenance in this case unless a solicitor said it was inevitable as this case - on the facts I can see - is borderline at best.

Sorry, I forgot to mention two other bits of info that might be helpful to the OP. About a decade ago, a statistical study of a sample of cases across the UK was performed. The study found that out of 1,200 cases sampled, only 9 were cases with no children under the age of 18 that included spousal maintenance as part of the settlement. The court's attitudes to spousal maintenance have also hardened over the past decade so I would exercise caution on relying on other people's experience unless it was very recent and in the same court.

Also, the courts have a duty to create a clean break between the parties. That might mean an unequal asset split which itself will be based on a number of factors but if your wife's reasonable needs can be achieved on 50% then there may be no strong argument for a departure from equality.

Thanks that’s good to know.

I think you need to consider whether cash is equal to pension pot, I would think not tbh so perhaps a clean break but with more cash to your ex is actually fair.

Also spousal support is often short term awarded for a year or two (as you can take it back to court after 12 months anyway).

I wouldn't be surprised with such a disparity in earnings and future pension that short term spousal could be awarded. It's to ease in to the new financial circumstances.

After all you could choose to cash in your pension to buy a property outright but you won't because you can raise a mortgage instead.

@RandomMess I think because of the assets in this case short term spousal maintenance is unlikely. Let's say there's spousal maintenance of £1k a month for two years. That's £24k and there are assets to settle it now, so the courts are likely to capitalise the maintenance and have a clean break.

There is a good practical reason for courts to do this. They are clogged up and an SM order could result in an enforcement case or a variation case. Capitalising and drawing a line under it makes the case go away and also meets the overriding objective to settle the case in a cost effective way.