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.

Also OP has been able to indulge her passion on a MW job but benefiting from a high-earner spouse so able to live a lifestyle/property way above her earnings. As I always ask, what do you 'bring to the table'?

> I am a woman myself and I am baffled by other women who haven’t had children thinking they deserve

And here we go. The usual contempt of women without kids (which I think explains the other answers).
I think if I started the thread by saying "he cheated, he's abusive, ..." (he is not, but just saying for sake of argument) most of you would have advised me to demand 95% of the assets.

Anyway, I guess selling the flat will be on cards at this point, it's just the flat is in the area where my siblings also live.

I disagree. People aren't laying into you because you haven't had children. It's because you think you should have been able to live a leisurely life working shorter hours than many and living a lifestyle you couldn't have afforded on your salary all these years, and now you're breaking up he should continue to keep you in the lifestyle to which you've become accustomed. Unless I've missed anything you haven't given a reason why your lack of income and pension is his fault and worthy of compensation

You don’t get any more in a settlement due to abuse or cheating either.

Honestly, you seem very naive as to how settlements work.

I don't think you'd be entitled to maintenance or why you think you should be. In some cases it can be awarded if the women has sacrificed her career to raise children but this is not the case with you. Also, the reason you have so much savings and equity is because of your STBXH, so you're already benefiting from his higher salary. You'll also have benefited from a higher quality of life for the years you were married to him. If you're going your separate ways you need to stand on your own two feet and keep yourself. You already have a great starting point with the money you'll walk away with from the divorce.

People are hating into you as you’ve had no barriers to earning, yet think your husband owes you a living and a lifestyle
when you’re actually simply an adult woman who should be responsible for yourself and not expect to sponge off your husband

It’s not contempt for women who haven’t had children. I myself do not have children out of choice.

the point is that women with children should be entitled to support after a divorce because they have usually given up their career or at least put it on the back burner to raise the couples children also they need the money to continue to house and raise the joint children.

you do not have dependents to think about but yet still think this man should fund your life once you are no longer married.

Incorrect, OP. I am proudly childfree, my husband is a higher earner than me, and I choose to work part time, and I still don’t think your husband should maintain you. And obviously wouldn’t expect mine to if we ever split up.

Divorce is different when a couple have chosen to have a kid, since the child is the priority, and usually at least one parent will have stalled/given up their career to raise the kid and that needs taken in to consideration.
Don’t give childfree women a bad name, thanks.

People would have told that if he cheated or abused you, that’s not factored in to divorce settlements. No one would have to demand 95%. Because it’s hugely unrealistic.

The reason child are is because one (normally the woman) has usually damaged their career to care for them. And both people chose to have them. Then there’s the on going care. Where again (usually the woman) has them for longer period and so it’s harder to work.

i have kids. On my own. Therefore, I can understand the impact kids have. However, I also managed to get myself into a high paying position and work really hard at my education and skills for over 20 years to get there. You have had far more opportunity than most to do that, but chose not to.

I think the responses are harsh, and do show contempt for OP, this probably reflects society's views in general where only paid work is valued and unpaid work-often domestic and caring roles, mostly done by women is undervalued and dismissed. The views here seem to be that if OP earns less then it's because she's a lazy, useless gold digger. But (and sorry if I've missed this?) but we don't actually know why OP works less than full time, presumably that was the agreement between her and her husband and worked for them both for the 15 years of their marriage, perhaps it was to support his career, perhaps it was to care for elderly relatives, or for grandchildren or nieces or nephews, or for house work, or to oversee home renovations, to cook him elaborate meals, etc etc. it doesn't really matter, the point is they both agreed that those would be their contributions and now that they've split up its not fair that only the financial contributions should 'count'. OP I don't think you'll get maintenance payments in UK, but you may (or may not) have an argument for a bigger share of the current assets. But the responses here are really disappointing.

None of this makes any difference. If he cheated, the settlement would be same.

if you had children then needs change. You both need a bigger property so the 50:50 split would need to change. But with children you would get UC and then spousal support is negated because it is means tested.

The relevant issues int his case is that incomes and wealth mean it is a needs case. And 50% of the assets covers your needs. You can improve your lifestyle by upping your income

So you have taken no time out due to maternity etc, and managed to reach 50yo (so a solid 30 years of work) and have put less than 30K into a pension? Why? And your DH has managed to put 470K into his in that time? I'm sorry OP but this is largely a situation of your own making. You chose a low paid, part time job, you've chosen not to save into your pension, all while living in probably the most expensive city in the UK. What was your plan? To live off the work of your DH for life? You can't expect to earn 20K and live mortgage free in an expensive city with a great pension.

Legally you have an argument to rebalance your assets to be in your favour from a property perspective...so you having the flat and taking less from the savings/his pension. That way you're adequately housed at the very least.

From your retirement perspective, you'll be in exactly the same positions as many others - you'll have to cut your cloth according to what's coming in. At least if you're in your 50s you still have time to boost your savings and income for the next 17 years or so (current state pension age). Or even trying to find a new role that's more aging friendly for someone to keep doing, even if only part time to keep the money coming in.

Your argument about maintaining the same lifestyle just doesn't apply in UK law. What other countries do regarding financial compensation when divorce happens isn't relevant. You live here, you're divorcing here so ensuring you have equitable treatment under UK law is your only concern.

Work with your solicitor on a variation of your needs and what you can afford. For example start at the point of you retaining the flat entirely mortgage free with offset to the savings/pension and working your way up to your maximum mortgage lending ability if required...but again offsetting against the savings pension.

I also think most of the responses are pretty harsh, regardless of child-free status. When you're in a marriage, whether you have children or not, you make choices together about work. It's of course possible the OP "chose" to work part time in a low-paid job against her husband's wishes. It's equally possible that the arrangement suited him too because she was running the home, making his life comfortable and freeing him up to focus on his career, which, during the marriage, presumably he would have been doing in their joint future financial interests.

Unfortunately, even in the latter scenario, on divorce the lower-earning spouse can't expect to maintain the lifestyle they've become used to. The lesson for all is: never rely on a partner financially. Or if you do, accept that it could be taken away any time.

Sorry you're going through this OP. It is a tough awakening, but you will be ok. A house is just a house. Things are just things. You'll get used to your new circumstances and I hope you'll forge a happy new life.

No one has said she isn’t entitled to half the assets. I would imagine she would get slightly more.

They were married and it is joint. But poster running to talk about her contribution are forgetting his contribution was equal. That doesn’t mean she gets to live as though she is in a relationship with someone who earns 90k, when she isn’t in a relationship with them anymore. He will continue to earn that money after any legal obligation to her is finished. Op will earn hers.

Op appears to want enough money to purchase somewhere but also be looked after in retirement. There’s simply not enough in the joint pot for that nor is that anywhere near a fair split. if she leverages his pension, so she has enough to buy somewhere outright then she will have had her share of the pension. She can’t have both enough to purchase a house and then part of his pension.

and I wish people would stop with the ‘with her at home that left him to be comfortable and build his career’. Plenty of single people build careers. Plenty of single parents do. Many off both, earning that sort of money, also have comfortable lives.

@Noideawwhatsoccuring completely agree

I managed to run a home, gave two children, work full time and increase earnings multiple times during marriage. Of course not possible for many but all this, sacrificed career and husband would t be successful if didn’t have wife at home is complete utter rubbish

in this case op can’t even use that excuse

What some posters fail to see that in a long marriage, with or without children, joint decisions can be made to the betterment of the couple which may very likely include opting for one of the 2 to be the homemaker, or, as here, work in a less stressful job, not 100% fulltime.

Sure, it's the privilege of the rich but why not, especially where there is enough of an income coming in from the sole high earner. It allows for a more comfortable life for both.

Noone is denying that
but all this, ex wouldn’t be able to earn if wife wasn’t ’running The gome’ etc is bs

but that luxury ends on divorce

and expecting the higher earner to lose most of assets to fund a mortgage free property ( and retirement or spousal) especially when that party only works part time and does not appear to be taking any responsibility to better their own income, while the other party are mortgaged to the hilt is not right or realistic

And you have to consider, when you choose to give up work and reduce your earning potential, how that will effect you long term.

the days of being maintained by a man for life are long gone. Women are expected to be able to support themselves.

if you choose to live a life where you are financially dependent on a man, you accept that if that man can no longer support your lifestyle, be it death, divorce, or an injury or illness that means he can no longer bring in his income, you are stuck. You either have to get out and bring in your own income, or live dependent on benefits/state pension.

a 90k salary isn’t really the level at which you need a full time supportive wife at home to do the domestic duties either.

But when you opt to take a back seat in your career or stick to just doing something that’s your ‘passion’, you accept that if you divorce you will have a much harder time than the other person who has a more secure income.

Thats with or without kids.

You can’t expect to take a slower pace in your career and benefit from working less hours. Then divorce, be able to walk away with the same level of lifestyle. Unless the person you are marrying is worth hundreds of millions.

If you choose to reduce your earning power or choose to stay in a low earning role, that’s the risk. The benefit is working a job you prefer, not pursuing progressions, working less hours and not having the stress of holding the family up financially. But there’s a risk.

You can’t expect to walk away, being able to have the majority of the assets, so you can buy mortgage free in your preferred, but expensive, area plus also have provision made in retirement in 17 years time when you chose to to work part time in a low paid role. Unless there’s massive amounts of assets.

I can guarantee if it was a woman posting that she earned 90k and her husband worked part time choosing to remain in his role because it’s his passion, now they were divorcing and he wanted to buy mortgage free AND pension provision, no one would be saying he helped her career and deserved it. Even if he did most of the house work.

They would be saying he should have taken the opportunity to increase his own earnings and he was taking the piss.