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?

I think you are offering too much but that would be ok if it facilitated agreement. I would now just offer her the 90% of equity and smaller pension share. Stop negotiating and compromising there is no common ground. Let a judge tell her.

@millymollymoomoo apologies then and I bow to your superior mental and physical strength as a single parent, but I am knackered with how much headspace and time juggling everything during the week entails and I can't afford to outsource any jobs and family don't help out.

But also it's ok because OP is suggesting 4 nights a week probably mainly over the weekend, so not much mental juggling as no schools/clubs to deal with on their own and OP is a guy so doesn't get menopause

@millymollymoomoo also I doubt millions of 50 year old women have exec roles

No, I don't agree that I am offering too much. She will have the children more than me and she will never earn as much as me. They need to be housed and housed well. Also, clean breaks with our income differential don't come cheap.

I think you are right that it is likely to need a judge to decide. But I'm not overly keen on wiping out 30% of her settlement on legal fees without one last try to negotiate!

I'm 41 and I'm knackered already 😂

I'm afraid I do find the whole "I can't work because of the menopause" thing a load of crap though. Men get worn out in their 50s too. Besides which, her health issues shouldn't be my problem after divorce anyway. It's certainly not causally related to the marriage and I shouldn't be some kind of income insurer for it.

I didn't say you can't work because of the menopause, I said it takes a toll on your health and slows you down and that combined with being the main carer is A LOT. Don't start trying to compare men and women's physiology they are different and not comparable.

It is materially integral to earning capacity (and a fact for women so unavoidable) though which is what financial separation is about.

We're digressing here but the problem with what you are saying though is that women need men to provide them an income in their 50s because they get worn out. I disagree with that for three reasons:

1. Women are more than capable of being self sufficient;

2. You cannot generalise like this. Lots of men have limiting conditions in their 50s and most women won't be impacted by the menopause to the extent that it has any impact on their earning capacity;

3. I fundamentally oppose any suggestion that divorced men should be responsible for their ex-wive's health conditions, especially when it is year's down the line and the severity is entirely unpredictable. I appreciate the current law still forces spouses to support their ex's where there are health conditions but I think the law needs to change as we need to move away from divorcees being an "insurer of last resort" for their ex-spouses. I am particularly disgusted at how people with drug and alcohol addictions can claim they cannot work and need to be maintained

4. I've read about lawyers stirring up the menopause thing in the last couple of years and it is clearly a cynical attempt to fight against the slow death of spousal maintenance.

Not really. Most women's earning capacity won't be affected by it at all. It's just a cynical line of argument dreamt up by divorce lawyers.

Me and my friends are all menopausal and snr positions and work full time with teens.

thats real life

got one doing GCSEs, one doing a levels, worked full time always, don’t outsource anything thank you

I should probably add that I wish divorce lawyers would stop going around claiming women cannot work because of the menopause. It really doesn't help when women already begin to suffer workplace ageism at a younger age than men.

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but why would you write that you want her to retain a solicitor so that he/she can write to you and you can write back to inform him/her of the actual facts?
Where I am from, when each party has retained a solicitor, the correspondence then occurs solicitor to solicitor, not solicitor to one of the parties of the marital dissolution.
Your solicitor is trying to get you the best settlement and hers will be doing the same for her. Her solicitor will be wholly uninterested in your version of what shouldn't and shouldn't be when it comes to income, expenses, short and long term debts, assets, other liabilities, account balances, etc. when it can easily be verified on documents provided by a disinterested third party (mortgage statement, bank statements, credit card statements, most recent quarterly report on pension balances, etc).
Also, it seems at cross-purposes to on one hand say she could easily amp up her income and on the other hand infer that she is too dull to communicate with her own legal representation adequately.

I'm afraid I do find the whole "I can't work because of the menopause" thing a load of crap though. Men get worn out in their 50s too

You've lost all sympathy from me with that comment. Menopause isn't a case of women getting "worn out" ffs

Also, I'm confused as to why you say you'd end up doing more of the school holiday childcare when you hinted at the fact that she works term time only

I have never said that women can't work, what I have said that you are happily ignoring because it doesn't fit your narrative is that women will undergo changes that are well documented and can impact their health at the same time as having a full-time job and looking after 3 teens on your own is a lot for 10/14 days when they will mainly be during the week when also working.
You, on the other hand, will not be looking after your DC during the week so can just focus on work and you don't have the hormonal and physiological changes that occur, so again, not comparable and your situation is a lot easier.

I look after my teens most of tine
only on here do you see this nonsense

@millymollymoomoo congrats that you find it so easy, but when I have been working and then have to go home and cook the dinner whilst wrestling my teens apart or getting an over emotional one giving me the ins and outs of who did or said what and then ferrying them about to this place or that, rinse repeat every work day for a decade, I don't think I am unusual in feeling exhausted and it is not made easier by the menopause.
Also according to stats there are 240000 50+ female single parents, so no 'millions' to compare and certainly not execs

@WelliesWithHeels Very briefly, the reason I would want to negotiate directly with her solicitor is because I don't want to retain a solicitor and she really needs to! Bit of backstory, I am not a solicitor but some years ago I did get exam qualified so I would be happy to represent myself until FDR. My concern is my STBXW doesn't disclose material information to her solicitor which is why she's being treated like a SAHM rather than a recent graduate who has chosen a job well beneath her qualifications. I'd feel a lot more comfortable determining if this is the blocker before proceeding to court and the expense of it.

@sparepantsandtoothbrush Worn out was a catch all term for "get ill." Singling out the menopause that doesn't render the vast majority of women unable to work full time would be incredibly sexist. Not just that, but it would be using private citizens to solve the state's problems.

She works term time only now but doesn't have to. I can easily do half holidays.

@HeresMyBreakdown I'm not dismissing it, I'm suggesting your perspective is narrow and self serving. Your personal health problems should not be your ex-spouse's responsibility.

Yeah, my solicitor said something similar. That none of these kind of excuses would carry much weight with a judge.

It doesn't stop other solicitors and their clients trying it on though! I think a big part of the problem is that lower earning spouses with these excuses seem to expect all their problems to be solved by the other spouse first before the other spouse gets a look in. Divorce is hardship for everyone and both sides have to take a share.

Hi OP, I think you're being fair and presenting your case well.
Unfortunately as a male on here you will always come across those whom will say black is white regardless, just because your male.
I have recent experience of very similar circumstances, not personally but that of someone very close to me. Rest assured the judge will look at your stbxw earning capacity and she will be expected to pursue that. I cannot understand those who wish to continue deliberations and waste money on court proceedings when there is a fair offer on the table. Do they not see that the money they are desperately trying to claw is merely going into others pockets?
Regardless, I would instruct a new, qualified mediator as a first port of call.

The split is all wrong!

You only have to pay her child maintenance.
Split assets 50:50 and come off mortgage now.

You can offer to take kids more.

I’ll give you an example of what my now husbands EW ‘demanded’ v what she was awarded by a judge (it went to final hearing as she wasn’t willing to negotiate at all).

The kids were 7 & 10 at the time.

She didn’t work & refused to get a job. He earnt about £75k at the time.

She wanted:

• To stay in the former marital home for a further 11 years (until the youngest was 18) - there was enough equity in the house to home both parties but she absolutely refused to entertain a sale
• EH pay the mortgage in full for those 11 years
• When the house was eventually sold she wanted 70% of the equity
• CM of £800 per month
• Spousal maintenance for 11 years (until the youngest was 18) of £1,200 pm
• A lump sum of £3k

She was made numerous offers to but refused to entertain them.

The judge awarded (at final hearing):

• The house be sold immediately - he (EH) agreed she could stay for a further 4 years until the youngest was in secondary school
• Judge only allowed the above if she paid the mortgage & maintenance in full herself
• On the sale of the house she would get 67%
• She was told to get a job & maximise her earnings
• Spousal maintenance was laughed out of court
• CM of £800 per month was agreed to
• Lump sum of £3k was rejected

In your case:

I highly doubt she would be awarded SM. You don’t earn enough and she’ll be expected to maximise her earnings.

Not a hope in hell she will be able to stay in the FMH for another 21 years.

I seriously doubt she’ll be awarded 90% of the equity.

No one wins in divorce - both parties always end up worse off and the sooner she realises this the better.

Tell her to crack on and let a judge decide.

I appreciate what the minimum might be and I may be over that, although I don't think I'm that far off the mark. And I'm willing to meet in the middle to avoid a pointless court saga though.

Appreciate there are some people on here who would want the shirt off my back before Mum gives up so much as a spa day but I can see them a mile off and don't take them seriously. Probably unmarried students banging their drum 😅

I can see you are trying to be fair, she quite obviously isn’t as she’s not prepared to use the degree she’s just spent 6 years studying for.

It sounds like you’d be quite open to having the children more, why not suggest 50/50. That way she has more opportunity to utilise her degree and maximise her earning opportunities, you get more time with the children and have to pay less maintenance. Realistically she’ll hate the idea, but it may bring her round to your original offer more quickly.

@Inthedeep I can see the logic of what you're saying but I'd be reluctant to bring time with the children into the conversation any more than I have. Although I have offered to have them more I think it has to stay as an offer rather than a demand.

I think there would be a dangerous line trod if I used time with the children as a financial negotiation tactic.

That’s very decent of you and I agree it’s best where possible to keep custody out of financial negotiations. I hate it when men go for more custody, then farm their children out, purely to reduce maintenance. But equally there seem to be some women (not the majority, but some) who fight for more than their fair share of custody from willing Dads purely because they want higher CMS payouts. Your soon to be ex wife appears to be one of those. Putting her career plans on hold until after the divorce smacks of playing games and trying to get an unfair settlement.

She should maximise her current earning potential, whilst it’s right you should support your children, you shouldn’t be supporting her lifestyle, that is no longer your concern. Especially as I’m assuming you supported her financially and in practical ways for the 6 years of whilst she studied for her degree. She should now use it to help herself.