No maintenance or rubbish solicitor?

[ConfusedAboutDivorce]

Not really a MN post since I am not a mum, but sadly I am going through a divorce.
Now, let's talk about the financials, in theory we want to keep it amicable, but I have actually spoken to a solicitor for an initial assessment and got fairly disappointed.
We have no kids, both approximately 50 y.o.
To give some rough figures (don't want to be identified!) my STBXH makes 90k before pension, while I make 20k. Equity in 2-bed flat of 350k (500k value, 150k mortgage). Then 200k of savings and around 500k of pension (yes, we have been saving aggressively!).

The solicitor talked about a 50/50 split in the assets and that's it, no maintenance really.
He told me about all the ways the assets can be split like I keep the flat but not the pension, we sell the flat and split everything, etc... which is all very vague and unhelpful. STBXH doesn't want the flat and mentioned something like we sell the flat as he says it's in expensive area and split everything, but I wouldn't want to go through the hassle of selling the flat.

Now the sticking point: the solicitor said I won't get any maintenance as I can more or less support myself. STBXH didn't mention it either. Instead I read online on several UK lawyers websites that maintenance is actually awarded in case of income disparity and based on needs and ability to pay. My STBXH can definitely pay some maintenance with that income. It also makes sense, I come from another European country, where that massive income imbalance would definitely be compensated I think.

Which is true? The solicitor didn't seem very convincing, should I dump him and find someone better? If there is no maintenance, can I aim for 60/40 split, given my lower income? I forgot to ask this to the solicitor.

Yes, it is true I can "survive" with my income, but a part from owning a small flat I will struggle to retire and will have very little savings if any, while my STBXH won't have any issue at all.

We live in London area, so higher cost of living. I have seen other MN threads about maintenance not being given but they seem to be compensated by something like 60/40 split or more.

I am not making a political statement, I am not discussing if divorce laws are good or bad, I was just trying to understand roughly what the law says I am entitled to.
If it's 50/50 assets and nothing else so be it, I am not making a political case against it.
There are countries on earth where I would be lucky to get 1£ and I would consider 3£ a generous offer from my STBXH, and other countries (USA?) where the salary difference would be compensated and people would tell me I would be silly to accept 50/50 without maintenance.

That’s fine.

Ex doesn’t have to make up the difference. You’re not his responsibility

Income disparity usually refers to the difference between 20k and multi millions. Even then most women will be advised to go for a clean break albeit a sizeable one.
You STBEXH hasn’t prevented you from working, it was your choice to work part time.
There is a definite misconception that men will keep you forever regardless of marital status.
I too am the higher earner in our household. It always bugs me that I would have to sacrifice my hard earned pension if anything happened. It is very shortsighted of both men and women to expect financial support forever if the marriage fails. In the same way that people are shocked when they realise how little their income will be on state pension alone.
I’m afraid you will be expected to work full time to support yourself.

Why haven’t you got a full time job?

This

But this isn't America. Why don't you just work full time and make your own money?

When you say we have been saying. What have YOU been saving OP? You earn 20k and don't work full time. I think even after 15 years of marriage it's totally unreasonable! In fact I think its highly immoral.

Man or woman should air caution when getting married to someone especially with such a huge difference in earnings and assets!

I am almost full time (like 75-80%). I'll go full time anyway once this mess settles, but it's not that my income is going to double.

I am 🤷‍♀️on paper obviously, but if I died tomorrow my estate would roughly be around 1m.

I am also in a “vocational” averagely paid job.

but 30 years of working full time, investing in a house in my sole name, couple of isa’s, decent pensions etc, and I’m more than financially capable of supporting myself should dh drop dead or walk out tomorrow.

that’s also with 2 children 🤷‍♀️.

Wikivorce isn't exactly reliable a source of information to the point you can ignore what your own solicitor said....

You might get maintenance but it would likely be for a fixed short term period only - like 1 year certainly not for years and years

Courts can see through people who earn a lot less out of let's be honest here....choice
You didn't give up a career to raise children here.

This

Why can't you buy a property outright for 175k-275k (with your £100000) savings

Still have £250,000 pension and still have over a decade of working... full time?

Spousal maintenance is not common these days and really is only in cases of huge earners (think millions). Even in those cases the courts prefer, if possible, to capitalise and split assets.

Courts want finality. Spousal maintenance can cause uncertainty, it also has to be updated each year which means more work and money. On the uncertainty front: your ex-spouse loses their job tomorrow (they have to come back to court for a variation); they have a massive stroke and get medically retired; they have a child with another women and don’t have such disposal income (they have to come back to court). They retire early (again back to court).

Even if your ex was offering spousal maintenance most solicitors would be looking to capitalise and just take assets to protect your position.

I am all for capitalisation, I think people in this thread misunderstood and thought I want a lifetime maintenance. I am ok with 60/40 clean break and within few years my husband would already be wealthier than me, so I don't see the uproar.

Mine was a longer marriage and he was abusive so slightly different scenario. He was already re-housed and had liquidated his pension fund. I was awarded everything bar a small sum for his legal fees. I do have maintenance, but of course he isn't paying it. 🙄

The judge took his behaviour into account (rare) but the main factor was ability to rehouse and as he already had and I hadn't, I got the bulk of the remaining assets.

In what world can you not have a ‘roof over your head’ with that amount of cash?
You don’t have to buy a house, you’ll certainly have enough money to rent until you’ve got yourself a full time job. BTW, Wiki isn’t exactly the law as it stands 😂😂😂

He should be wealthier than you. He earns more than you.

Are there any other mitigating circumstances as to why you aren't full time, and/or haven't been able to build your career (eg moved around for his job)??

Generally spousal support is awarded where one party sacrificed their career for the other, eg I get it because I moved 4 times, including continents and had 2 children one with sen. We sorted it privately.

So OP I would focus less on split (save for pension) and more on housing. 50/50 can be departed from for “need” and housing is usually the most important.

You are going to need the bigger housing pot because your income is much lower (and your assets in London are not massive to be honest. This is not a case where there is enough equity you can both be housed mortgage free in smaller properties).

The obvious thing would be you to keep the flat (and he gets the savings), but would you get a mortgage for 150k on your income? If you went to full time could you?

You could then split the pension 50/50. (That would be a 57/43 split).

OP, what job did you have when you met your ex? Did you provide half the deposit for your joint property? Did you only work part time then?

I’m not sure if there is relevant history or a back story here that might make the facts here seem different. However, on paper, taking 50% of all of the assets you have mentioned totals £525k. On your salary in 15 years (assuming it has not fluctuated) you have only earned £300k in that time. Without even taking into account general living expenses like clothing, socialising, etc you are taking away £225k more than you could ever have contributed. If anything, I feel far more sorry for your husband and hope he has a good solicitor as I am sure if this was the other way around you’d feel quite miffed!

I would be very grateful with 50% if I were you. You’re in a very lucky position to buy somewhere small (albeit in a different area) outright. You can increase earnings and live quite comfortably.

Ok good advise about focusing on housing. I can't get a 150k mortgage, I can stretch to 80k maybe.

My idea is to get the flat mortgage free and only a small part of the pension. He can easily raise a 300-400k mortgage.

@ConfusedAboutDivorce he might not be able to easily get a mortgage of 400k at 50 on 90k so you will need to check with a mortgage broker before you suggest this. You need to show any suggestion you make is fair and reasonable.

Be also wary of just giving him all the pension in preference for assets. I would much rather be 50 with a small mortgage but a 250 k pension pot then 50 with a mortgage free house and no pension. On your income and your age you don’t have the ability to build up sizeable pension sums. At retirement it’s not like you can downsize and release equity.

other countries (USA?) where the salary difference would be compensated

Depends on which state, I should think, what you get. I'm told that California is especially rigorous about dividing all assets even if one partner has put in 99% of the wealth to the marriage, both partners in theory get even split of the wealth.

My cousin divorced last year (in CA). She is the high earner & her DH walked away with very little because he recognised he had been a financial drain on the marriage. They DO have a child so reasons not to fight it out.

My mother (in CA) got large alimony settlement 25 years ago but she also sacrificed career options to support his career back in 1960s. That kind of alimony doesn't exist any more IIRC for ordinary earners, just split of all assets. Ordinary earner in CA means < about £250k UK.

If OP is > 50yo I doubt she can borrow more than 1.5x her income for a mortgage.

Just be aware 15 years isn't that long a marriage. His pension that was accrued pre marriage might be excluded and any assets he had from before might also not count as marital assets. Did he or you own property before you married? I was under the impression that only assets accrued during the marriage counted, especially with no children to consider.