Financial Settlement - Reasonable?

[Bub1765]

I went into my divorce thinking I was being quite reasonable with my offer for settlement but 6 months on I seem to be getting nowhere. I've had legal advice and got the impression that I'm being reasonable, in line with a court outcome but not excessively generous but my STBXW seems to be expecting a lot more and ongoing financial ties for a long time. I would be most grateful if those who have settled or been subject to a final hearing think this is within the right ball park:

H: 41, earning £102k gross per annum. Net income per month of £3,635 after commuting costs, child maintenance and taking sole responsibility for shared debts.

W: 39, earning £14k part time. Net income per month of £3,183 when benefits and child maintenance added to total. Universal credit element is £671 of this. Was retraining to earn more and recently graduated, has now chosen not to pursue this during divorce.

Children: 3 (ages 12, 9 and 7)

Assets: House £110k equity (£385k minus mortgage and cost of sales); Pensions £190k, Cars around £10k.

Liabilities ex mortgage: Debt of around £8k.

Proposal:

Children: 4 nights with me per fortnight, 10 nights with her. 50/50 split in school holidays. This part has been agreed and is not contentious although I am more than willing to do more to enable her career (but this balance would pay her a decent amount of child maintenance).

Assets: 90% equity to her, 10% to me. I will agree to stay on mortgage for 4 years when youngest is at secondary school, at which point she must either remove me from the mortgage and pay my 10% or sell. Pensions 70/30 split in my favour. Each keep own cars.

Income: Clean break on income. Child maintenance paid.

For context, my STBXW is earning beneath her earning capacity and is unwilling to do anything about it. Childcare would largely be covered by additional UC and I would happily pay the rest but I am much less willing to pay this amount without a clear goal of improving her earning capacity and ceasing to be dependent. I would estimate - conservatively - that her immediate earning capacity is £25k and this could rise to £40k. It could go rather higher with a bit of effort but I won't crystal ball gaze.

Points of contention are that:

1. She wants to stay in the house for 14 years when youngest is 21, me remain named on and contribute to the mortgage albeit not 100% and then to sell and split in her favour. I think this is a bad idea because she won't do anything to improve her earnings now and both of us will probably find ourselves with insufficient capital to buy again in our mid-fifties (unless she got the lion's share of the equity at that point, in which case only I would end up unable to buy but obviously I don't think that would be at all fair).

2. She wants spousal maintenance but because she has universal credit of £671 I would have to pay a lot to make any difference to her income, to the point that I would have a materially lower income than she does. I don't think this is fair on our children either as it would leave me barely able to cover my own costs and much less able to provide for them on an ad hoc basis. My counter position is that I could agree to cover certain expenses (e.g. hobbies, uniforms, school trips) outside of the CMS arrangement.

Would welcome thoughts?

Guess I will be quitting then. Hell would freeze over before I spend 14 years precariously renting, busting a gut so that my STBXW can laze around and have someone else buy a house for her.

I have no objections to my ideas/notions being challenged but I don't like being belittled or someone attempting to 'put me in my place' with personal comments and it only comes from men on this forum and I've been on it a long time. If you could read the way that you reply to people you agree with and then look at the tone taken with those you don't, it's blatant. I expect you to disagree with me again, but that doesn't make it less real. Honestly the comments you have thrown at me could equally be reflected back at yourself

Yes but I never said it was about hours (although she doesn't need all the school holidays off). It's about what she can earn with her qualifications.

I work around 40 hours a week to earn my income but I very much doubt a judge would be impressed if I decided I would go and work 40 hours a week for the minimum wage instead. I would expect the same standard to apply to her.

I'm not making personal comments, I'm saying the arguments you're making don't stand up to scrutiny. And you don't seem to like that very much.

You're clutching at straws now, your argument has a double standard. Are you seriously suggesting that courts - who regularly make settlements that allow someone to retrain and expect people to do so - will ignore someone's qualifications if they deliberately ensure that they are underemployed at the point of divorce?

Oh well, I guess her child maintenance will end up at more like £300 a month and the house will be repossessed then. I work in a job where any adverse credit bars me from the profession so it won't be hard to destroy the career I don't want to start the one I do 😂

@chillisalt You say that, but if I'm unable to buy a house for the next 14 years - or ever - what would be my incentive to spend the rest of my working life doing something I don't enjoy? People have an innate desire to achieve something in their lives. If not home ownership I will have to do something else but it won't be bankrolling an ex!

Add spousal maintenance to the mix and what would be the point in earning the money in the first place? All those very early mornings, all that expense on commuting, all that time in the office? For what?

You say it's a bluff but I think in doing so you miss the point. She's simply not going to get a settlement anywhere near as good as you claim she will. That's the real reason people don't have to quit.

If she got the sort of settlement you are claiming she will then I'm not bluffing. I've wanted to change career for years. This would be the final push I need. But she won't.

Why have all @chillisalt's posts been deleted? She hasn't said anything inappropriate here.

I'd be rethinking letting her stay in the FMH for four years. It's never going to be the right time for the kids. It's best to get it over and done with.

Maybe. But there is a much stronger argument to say she should be working full time with the youngest 11 and at that point with her qualifications she could easily get a big enough mortgage on her own home without needing me on the mortgage too.

But certainly people suggesting I might have to wait until the children are 21 are being ridiculous. Maybe it was that nonsense that got her deleted😂

You are 100% correct that she should be upping her earnings. I'm amazed anyone is disagreeing (well, I would be amazed if this wasn't Mumsnet)

@SirenGirl I'd be surprised if she got a better deal in court even if they were hoodwinked into believing she could only earn £14k. She would already be getting the lion's share of liquid assets and have a net income not all that different to mine once mandatory expenses are taken into account.

She needs to earn about £19k to buy somewhere locally without me on the mortgage too. Every year that earning requirement drops by about £1k because of the extra capital paid off. So the idea she could make me wait until the youngest is 21 is also quite silly. Even if judges were making such daft judgements, it's going to end up either in appeal or the wronged party taking steps to make the order unworkable.

I think the courts will end up awarding her more of the house equity to establish herself AND accommodate OP being able to house himself. I do not believe she will get SM.

However, @Bub1765 my points remain that you need to have a word with yourself and be prepared to articulate absolutely everything in your proposals, and in court if it comes to that, with a children first approach. So every single thing you suggest must be either prefaced or explained as to why you think that is fair and best for the kids.

The onus is on her to prove why she should not work more and not on you to argue that she could.

best of luck and I’m going to unfollow this thread now as it’s been totally derailed by nonsense.

The onus is on her to prove why she should not work more and not on you to argue that she could..

3 young children, one 7
30 hours a week
term time only to coincide with the children

will be straightforward and precisely what I did and judge came down very much in my favour. He said that i had achieved what many parents aspire to in terms of an ideal working hours that balances work and children and he would not stipulate any such requirement as he felt it was unreasonable and not in best interest of children

are you no longer using a solicitor?

but it was my solicitor who advised that I should stop working with her. The problem wasn't entirely with what she was proposing but also her general reluctance to solve the issues.

both my sol and my ex’s agreed on a mediator.

who selected yours ?

OP I haven't RTFT because I am on my knees with my divorce ATM and haven't got the bandwidth. So apologies for that but incase it is helpful I wanted to let you know that as part of my STBEXH's questions to me (following exchange of form E) he has asked that I show my CV.

This question was approved in court at our FDA, I did not object to it but I'm assuming if I had the judge may have ordered it anyway because it's a reasonable request IMO.

I won't bother with details and of course every case is different but I accept that I must maximise earnings but already work FT and don't agree I could earn more. I accept that showing my CV is a helpful step in resolving this difference of opinion.

So I guess what I am saying is that should it come to it you probably have the option of asking your exW to submit a CV which may act as a way of documenting your point.

It won't of course mean she has to take a new or part time job as the needs of the children are a massive factor.

My mediator was useless and gave no advice that fell anywhere near the guidance I’d had from a solicitor. Really, she was just there to stop us from talking over each other, but she wouldn’t be nudged into voicing an opinion about what would be considered fair and she told us to stop after 3 sessions because we just didn’t agree. When my ex suggested a 97/3% split in her favour, rather than laughing out loud like the response of two solicitors, the mediator just asked me to talk about how I felt about that, which gave my ex the indication that that split was possible. It would never have got through a consent order and I can honestly say mediation was a total waste of money, in my case.
A high earning friend of mine ended with a 70/30 split in his exes favour, no pension share despite his being much more, no spousal maintenance, but CMS. This allowed her to buy a smaller home with a small mortgage and he could also buy something suitable. No mesher as there was 16 years until youngest 18 and unnecessary as they could afford not to need one with the right equity split. House was sold immediately. His ex was told to retrain and also told to try and work full time. In court. Another high earning friend kept his business and his pension and his ex kept the house, but had to take over the mortgage- so she sold. No mesher, not even for the three or four years left until 18/21. No SM.
In both cases, the equity split plus income from CMS and benefits allowed them all to meet their housing/living needs with a clean break - there was obviously a split in the lower earners favour to take into account the care and housing of the children, but no more than you’re offering.
When comparing my finances with my exes, unavoidable outgoings such as commuter costs were taken into account - my ex didn’t have that particular outgoing because she works from home.
Your offer seems more than reasonable to me.
My partner works over 50 hours per week and has done for many years, looking after teenagers simultaneously and without a live in partner or outsourcing anything. Many of her colleagues are the same. She wouldn’t expect to be supported financially because of the menopause, she nearly choked when I asked her opinion!
Id personally stick with what you’re offering or let a judge call it - you might be better off.