Which parties get their current standard of living maintained?

[sirensong]

Two people I'm close to are unfortunately starting mediation to divide assets. Each obtaining legal advice but interested in views based on experiences/ precedent.

The details:

• Short one year marriage, prior co-habitation for around two years

• One baby

Person A: earns around 260k part time but 400k if they worked full time

Brought an expensive car, a large pension and some hefty investments into the marriage. Bought a second expensive car during the marriage for the other to use.

Paid c.80% of the house deposit (both on the title)

More likely to prefer weekends/ overnights in terms of custody.

Person B: earns around 190k working full time

Uses one of the cars the other bought

Paid 20% of the house deposit but a year of 100% mortgage payments towards levelling things. There's probably around 500k property equity.

Solid pension but not as high as person A. No investments.

A year of reduced earnings as a result of extended parental leave. Majority of the parenting to date.

Primary caregiver - will be largely responsible for childcare going forward. Maybe 80/20. May take a hit on career progression.

----

Person A thinks assets should be divided to be similar to what was brought into the marriage/ proportional share of house equity contributed. With an equal share of ongoing child support costs. This would result in person B being unable to maintain the mortgage on the current family home but able to afford somewhere smaller.

Person B thinks the matrimonial pot should be divided according to need. That because of majority custody and the requirement to preserve the same standard of living for the child, that calculations should be as though person A was working full time and result in a 50/50 - 70/30 split of assets and ongoing mortgage cost contributions.

I assume a child is the overriding factor even in a short marriage but are they the priority in terms of who should be expected to have their living standards maintained?

Should person A be left able to afford a similar property to the family home (vs say a two bed flat) even though they won't have custody/ primary childcare responsibilities?

Should the baby be entitled to the same value primary house as at present, or is the bar for reasonable accommodation set lower? (Eg. the family home could be sold and lower value properties purchased by each party)

Top lawyers will be fighting this one out - it may not be a standard high street settlement.

Person B is correct: marital assets are divided according to needs. It's possible that with those earning levels and capital assets it could move to the "sharing" principle, which applies where there is more than enough money to house both in accommodation to fit their needs. But unclear how big the mortgage is.

In neither case is it about preserving the lifestyle they had before.

They look at parity in housing. The court wants both parents to have a reasonable place to live with their child. They don’t like there to be a huge difference in homes.

if person A’s solicitor is any good, they’d be advising to go for 50/50 to ensure they pay as little as possible- even if that isn’t what they do currently.

The fact that both have such good wages means they are both able to support sizeable mortgages. Even in London they’d both be able to find a 3 bed home in most areas. May have to move to slightly less upmarket area. They can accommodate their housing needs from the current matrimonial home.

Id say that given it’s a short marriage, pensions could be kept. But it’s up to a judge and there’s a wide range of options they could go for.

on the ‘compensation’ for a year off work, I’d say that’s a lifestyle choice. And one year of pension contributions- even on a 6 figure salary isn’t that great. I’d also assume that this isn’t the public sector given the salary levels, so could be 10% of salary

Ha! Yes that is very true. And was in my case. Wish I’d married person A or B frankly!

@Andthesky I understand counselling to have been attempted a couple of times but abandoned after the counsellor couldn't keep control of the session/ there was explosive dispute about the narrative. A great pity from an outside perspective but obviously an onlooker doesn't know the reality behind closed doors.

@Rubixcoobe I think there were several months of unpaid leave to continue childcare after maternity entitlement finished (instead of eg hiring a nanny). Assume its lost salary not just the pension, but probably a relatively minor point in the overall settlement.

"if person A’s solicitor is any good, they’d be advising to go for 50/50 to ensure they pay as little as possible- even if that isn’t what they do currently."

@rubixcoobe 50/50 considering which assets though?

More fool the pair of them then. And pity the poor baby caught in the middle of this shit show.

I don't know all the positions that will be argued but I understand person B has the view that they should be financially set up for the child to stay in the current home because person A could release money from investments to buy a new property. And if they also worked full time their salary would be double theirs. With a short marriage this would ordinarily hold no weight so I was wondering about the child factor impact.

@sirensong

please understand the lawyers want as much money as possible- they can and will ask for anything you or anyone else tells them

have you seen the cases of neighbour disputes costing hundreds of thousands - you think the lawyers would say “you risk losing half a million pounds if you pursue this through court and lose” - I think the lawyers just pander to crazy requests whilst privately mocking the stupidity of some people

I mean your bill wouldn’t be quite so high but it’ll be a nice little earner so try to factor that in

I struggle to believe a judge is going to take things into account that you both had before the marriage given it’s only been a year

And your cars? Well yes he will decide if you ask him to but is it really so bad you can’t even agree on who gets which car?

@Quitelikeit To be clear, I'm not one of the parties. Your posts seem to imply otherwise. I'm in agreement about the futility of pouring legal fees down the drain.

Matrimonial home, but other assets ( pension/ inheritance left out of split)

Maintaining standards of living isn't how assets are divided. Assets will be divided first by needs - there are plenty - and then after that they will share anything left that accrued during the marriage and then they will let the divorcing couple keep whatever else they brought to the marriage themselves.

This case will most likely result in each taking back what they put in despite the child because both earn so much and there are plenty of assets to meet needs.