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?

Yes, but what my solicitor tells me is much closer to the outcomes I've read on sites like BAILII and heard anecdotally than anything her solicitor says. If my wife was right, I'd have no incentive to go to work. Based on what she has asked for I'd have to live in a shared house handing over 60% of my income whilst I'd be working/commuting 50 hours a week. I think this is quite an unlikely outcome because no reasonable person is going to be motivated to keep this going for 14 days let alone 14 years.

I think in the unlikely event I got a nasty surprise in court, she'd get an elementary economics lesson about effort and reward quite quickly afterwards!

Yeah she is at the moment because I'm not agreeing to pay her anything else. Can I also just be clear here; my STBXW would never be as sanctimonious as @arethereanyleftatall about claiming benefits.

The problem with my STBXW isn't that she wants more money from me to pretend she isn't dependent. She wants more money because she wants more money and if that means I have to pay her £900 so she can be £200 better off, sobeit. That's the problem.

No, I would be unemployed by now enjoying lie ins at my parents if she had 😂

@arethereanyleftatall You've actually been more helpful than you realise. I have no time for the sanctimony but this is what I've picked up:

1. SM was by consent, not court order. I suspect a court order for so long would have been unlikely. What drove your outcome was probably a mutual agreement about childcare with your ex. I could never agree the same with my wife after what I saw during lockdown when I had to work 16 hour days doing home schooling and then my job.

2. You don't mention commuting costs so perhaps your husband had more disposable income. Around 10% of my net income is spent getting to and from work.

3. I've noticed you have posted sanctimoniously about SM for a long time. Courts are increasingly turning against SM so different era, different outcome. You'd be expected to earn full time minimum wage by the time youngest was 11 now, if not more.

4. You've said nothing about your education but I doubt you've spent the last six years studying a degree to improve your income whilst your husband picked up all the slack and then decided when you graduated that you couldn't be bothered. So your circumstances are quite different.

5. You've let me see inside the mind of an SM recipient. It ain't pretty, but forewarned is forearmed.

You mention you could do the school run etc. as you wfh 2 days pw. Did you do this when you lived together? Given your views about work, how did you end up in a situation in which she gave up work when you had children? Were you always opposed to her being a SAHM and if so, why didn’t you sort this matter out before having two more children? Im a bit shocked you expect taxpayers to support your children through in-work benefits when you earn over 100K. What do you think will happen when the benefits stop, your children want to go to university and your wife is facing a future with a low pension?

@Bub1765 you seem to have all the answers (to your rhetorical questions) so what did you want from people on Mumsnet apart from dismissal of other perspectives?

Yet again, you totally missed the point about the kids and starting banging on about your wife again. In fact you have not made a single viable suggestion as to how you are going to achieve a sensible divorce agreement that serves your children best.

Let me rephrase this in clunky terms.

The court will assume everything is joint as a starting point, including your income, then work from there looking at the children’s needs.

They will likely award equality in pensions to get that off the table, you will take a hit there as the main pension accruals have come from you.

So the next decisions are about the CHILDREN and they will divvy out equity and as part of that look at cost of living, where the children should live etc.

Given that you commute 3-4 hours to and from work, the kids are better off staying the bulk of the time with her.

I agree with you that she should NOT get spousal support but you are the main provider for three kids regardless of whether you are with their mother or not so try to remember that because you’re coming across like you forgot that.

It would help you to fill out Form E.

I earn the same as you with two girls and get CM from their dad which just about covers my current energy bill and one weekly shop. Everything else is paid for by me and there is not a lot left at the end of the month and the kids expenses now compared to when the girls were in primary school during the divorce is huge.

I think your workaround here is to be more child focused and propose similar to what you have done BUT make additional provision for your children. One crude example could be that you commit to instead of giving her 200 quid you pay 50 quid a month into a child isa for each of them plus an initial additional amount for the older ones to adjust years missed. This will effectively be an American style “college fund” and help with uni costs or housing.

Be more dad.

I was principally interested in the mentalities that drive people to take divergent views and whether there were any reasonable arguments for my STBXW's position that I had not considered.

So far, I haven't heard any although I'm equally skeptical of those telling me I'm being "far too generous."

I was already fairly comfortable that I was in the right ball park with the totality of my offer and more curious as to whether it needed tweaking to "work" although I haven't seen many responses in that regard either.

I've also seen some absolutely shameless posters who would use the children to enrich themselves (both as RP and NRP), deploying emotional blackmail to justify their actions. It's not something I would do but it's worth knowing about to be able to defend against it.

I'm coming away from this discussion feeling reasonably assured that I should "hold my position."

I did the school run a lot between 2018-2023 when she was studying as she frequently had a timetable with early morning and late afternoon lectures a commute away from home. I've done it less since as her part time job is very close to the children's school. On reflection, I think this has all been quite deliberate so that she can pretend she does the school run because she "has to."

I've always been against a breadwinner/SAHM arrangement but I'm also very conflict averse and will have to accept there is a price to pay for not being more forthright at the outset. However, I think that price should be paid in full with an uneven asset split and not ongoing spousal maintenance.

I also don't expect taxpayers to support my children. I don't expect them to do anything because my STBXW is quite capable of supporting herself without recourse to benefits. If she chooses not to do so, I consider that a matter between her and the state. I don't see myself as having a role to bail out the state because someone I am divorced from is deciding to earn less than she could.

Equally, given my wife is choosing not to do anything about her career now, I am comfortable that the long term consequences of this will fall very hard on her. Again, because she is quite capable of avoiding this scenario, I don't feel it is my responsibility.

It doesn't matter now what has happened in the past.

You need to put forward a proposal that works for everybody.

DO NOT focus on whether she can earn more or less, as per my experience the judge will take that into consideration. Whether she decides to increase her earnings or not, is not for you to worry about. She may be holding out to get the maximum from the settlement before she decides to increase her earnings. A lot of women and men, both do that.

You will NOT be expected to pay SM for the next 12-14 years, unless you have loads of assets or are a millionaire. The judge will probably apply SM as a short term to balance it out.

Your solicitor seems to know what he/she is doing, but definitely make sure that there is no option left open to make a SM claim down the line and it is a clean break.

@NosyJosie You need to get a better understanding of the law. The court will not consider my income is a joint resource. That has not been good law since at least Waggott vs Waggott and probably before that.

They might award equal pensions, but they won't do this if one party has taken all the liquid assets first. There is going to have to be a degree of offsetting.

They will decide the children should spend more time with my STBXW because of the commute, I agree. However, they will also consider the amount of time I can work from home and how I only commuted to work 6 days in every 14. They will also consider the fact I get 33 days annual leave a year plus all bank holidays in dividing up school holidays. My flexibility to work from home when she cannot will also be a factor.

I haven't forgotten that I am the main provider for the children. If my STBXW continues to make a mockery of the law by working well beneath her earning capacity then the amount I will pay in child maintenance will be more than she is earning. I am more than satisfied I'm paying enough. Furthermore, the uneven split in the home equity will mean I'm going to pay £500 more every month for the entirely of a 25 year mortgage in order to own the same type of house as her and provide a home for the children. That's £150k in case you are wondering. If my STBXW refuses to do anything about her income then it becomes extremely important for me to be able to provide a home for the children if/when they go to university because she won't be able to afford to (which will be entirely her fault).

I filled out Form Es for both of us to help my solicitor. Obviously I couldn't get my STBXW's spot on, but it was good enough to be able to analyse the situation rather than have a freestyle chat.

Regarding the expenses of the children going up, I know that. Which is why I want to retain control over the money I earn to provide for my children. I do not want it instead being paid as spousal maintenance in order to enable someone to avoid working to their earning capacity and letting the whole family down as a result. I feel that Mumsnet seems quite happy to complain about deadbeat dad's who let the family down by earning a pittance and avoiding their obligations to pay child maintenance but are all too lenient on mothers who do the same. I am deeply concerned that my children will go without as they get older because their mother insists "being at home" is more valuable than taking her share of financial responsibility in a country that is going to squeeze living standards harder and harder. Being at home is a luxury fewer and fewer can afford.

I like your ISA idea. I like it a lot. I also like the more general idea of ringfencing additional provision for them. I had given some thought to it but worried that the terms would be flaky (i.e. an undertaking that is easy to break and therefore unacceptable to any solicitor representing her). If there is a way of giving it certainty and enforceability sufficient to satisfy her then it's worth consideration.

@LetsTryToHelp Thank you, sensible advice. I was under the same impression that a judge would probably draw their own conclusions about what she could earn although I would want to slip into the bundle that she has not been a SAHM for a very long time and has in fact been a student with lectures often at 9:00am and sometimes at 6:00pm, and all a 30 minute commute away. I cannot help thinking this is material to the case.

You have to include the facts into the bundle and leave it to the judge to decide.

I did and my barrister made it a point to make the judge aware of it.

"Bub1765 · Today 12:14
They will decide the children should spend more time with my STBXW because of the commute, I agree. However, they will also consider the amount of time I can work from home and how I only commuted to work 6 days in every 14. They will also consider the fact I get 33 days annual leave a year plus all bank holidays in dividing up school holidays. My flexibility to work from home when she cannot will also be a factor."

This is not a custody hearing but a financial one and hence the judge will not make a decision who will get more time with the children.

You have to including in your proposal / bundle that you had taken more childcare responsibilities in order for your ex to complete her degree and you will continue to do so, in order to help her increase her earnings.

Do not mention that she lives minutes from the work and if it is brought up by the other party, use it against them to show that she can easily manage it.

@LetsTryToHelp Thank you. All these helpful tips are why I will definitely be hiring a barrister if it has to go to court!

This may not be a custody hearing but I can promise you the court will consider who has the children most because that will influence the housing issue.

6 days in 14 - does that mean you wfh two days a week and if so, can you flex it so that you have the children on those two days? If you also assign yourself half the summer holiday, half the Xmas new year break and two of the half terms you would be nearing a 60/40 split for the purposes of child maintenance and be more in control of that element.

Absolutely agree that some partners take the absolute pish and work less then they can but then if they are low earners in general, there is little incentive to do better.

Solicitor aside, might be worth investing in a barrister.

"NosyJosie · Today 13:19
This may not be a custody hearing but I can promise you the court will consider who has the children most because that will influence the housing issue."

The housing needs are the same for both the parties.

Plus the OP will struggle to get a second mortgage and even if he manages to get one, he will have to pay the stamp duty on a second home.

Absolutely agree that some partners take the absolute pish and work less then they can but then if they are low earners in general, there is little incentive to do better.

@NosyJosie This is the sticking point. She seems to think she is able to "get away" with not maximising her earning capacity in a way that I cannot. She also probably thinks she can force the issue knowing I'm unlikely to reduce my own income.

Which makes me wonder whether, if not outright taking a pay cut, if she keeps pushing for an unreasonable settlement that I should take a more cavalier attitude to job security (e.g. by contracting) to unsettle her a bit?

No. That’s the worst idea ever.

You have far too much resentment here. It will shine through in court and you’ll get penalised.

Once you’re divorced what either of you do with work is none of the other’s business. She might go get a huge job and you might get laid off. The future is uncertain.

Focus on what you can control now and change your attitude to the things you can’t control. You’re burning daylight here.

@NosyJosie I wasn't suggesting permanent to contract roles now. I was thinking more if there was an unfavourable settlement (e.g. only a best endeavours clause to remove me from the mortgage).

Knowing I have only insecure employment (although, to be honest, the risk of me actually stuggling for contract work is pretty low, although she doesn't know that) might be enough to scare her into maximising her own income and a better mortgage capacity to have security.

If you are going for a clean break divorce then the matrimonial home is normally sold and you are both off on your separate ways.

Your solicitor is doing the bare minimum and should have given you better advice but that’s what barristers are for I suppose.

will you come back and update @Bub1765 post settlement?

I will try!

how close are you to closing?

How is your ex paying her legal fees?

If you reduce your earnings, you will presumably also lose out by way of pension and benefits?