Wants versus needs

[parent17464748]

In cases where one earner is very well paid (six figure sums but not millions), where is the line drawn between something the lower earning ex "wants"/lifestyle choices as against something they need such as housing or food?
I know there is a guide to how they lived during the marriage but costs will be much higher with two homes.

Do you have children together?

Children? Length of marriage and relationship? Future earning capacity?

The recipient spouse will always be expected to mitigate their circumstances to the extent that they reasonably can, irrespective of what the other party is earning. If they can work full time for example then they will be awarded a settlement on the assumption that they will do so whether their ex is earning £20k or £20m. Obviously what changes though is that the more the other spouse is earning, the more that they can afford to pay and a recipient might decide that the settlement is still enough to, for example, buy the house they want or work part time.

I think the problems mostly arise in that £80-150k bracket though. These are good salaries but they aren't good enough that a recipient spouse would get significantly more of the assets or get awarded enough maintenance to afford not to work full time after divorce. At the lower end the likely outcome is getting more house in return for less pension and a clean break and at the higher end maybe a 70/30 split on assets OR 2-3 years spousal maintenance (not both). It's in this bracket that I find recipient spouses the most unrealistic about outcomes (e.g. being able to stay in the family home until children are 18, more than 70% of the joint assets or spousal maintenance until retirement).

What is important to remember too is that there is no legal concept of "want" in divorce, only "need." Needs might be generously interpreted but they are still needs and the court has made a clear steer in recent years that the recipient will have to adjust their lifestyle downwards if they could improve their earnings but choose not too. The courts have an objective to let both parties move on as soon as possible.

It also depends on who is responsible for the children, if there are any.
Many people on MN assume the higher earner is the husband with the wife working PT in a low paid job while doing all the childcare etc, he's barely involved, and so she should get a greater share of everything.
But what if the wife is the high earner, looks after the kids etc, and the husband is basically a cocklodger? Should he expect to continue to be kept in the style he's become accustomed to?
My point is it very much depends on individual circumstances, but it would be a very good idea not to be dependent on someone else if at all possible. Your best bet is to get a good solicitor who can advise and advocate for you.

Whether the lower earning spouse does a lot or very little is a gender neutral problem. Unfortunately it's also unlikely to have much impact on a divorce. Both parties still have needs and - were it to go to court - there would be an effort to meet those needs.

Unless there is a clear case of abuse or neglect, the lower earning spouse is likely to get a similar outcome regardless of whether they were a very hands on parent or were someone who left everything to a nanny (or an iPad).

I realise that the example I gave can apply to either gender. What I was trying to demonstrate is that what the outcome will be very much depends on individual circumstances, and the advice given on here is often based on the assumption the husband is a high earning, hands off parent, which is probably not the case for most, therefore it has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

I disagree that low earning spouse who doesn't have the kids often is likely to get the same outcome as a low earning spouse who has them most of the time. The housing needs are different for a start. Plus the first example has more ability to work full time and fully support themselves as they're not as restricted by caring responsibilities.
Again, this very much depends on circumstances and how good your solicitor is!

These are the factors a judge considers.

No, the housing needs aren't that different really. Unless one parent is not going to spend time with the children with overnights (rare) then both parents will have similar housing needs.

This was me. I argued and won a split of around 65/35 in my favour and kept all my pensions which are worth ten times his. (3 children pretty much 100% my responsibility)
Didn't appear the court was the least bit interested in whether ex DH was able to maintain the lifestyle I afforded him. I think they saw him for what he was. It was clear on the D81 form what he'd be left to support himself on after paying maintenance and i doubt it would get him a bedsit.

The other thing to remember is that the comparison is between net income not salary. A six figure earner pays a lot in tax and will most likely be paying into a pension. When all this is taken into account they lose about 40% of the of their salary. Then they probably pay child support, although this reflects the fact they are handing off costs to the resident parent. This person could see their net income dropping to below 5k per month.

The other parent might have a small salary but could be eligible for UC, child benefit and child support. Their income could be over 3k per month.

What is a huge difference in salary doesn’t translate into a huge difference in net income.

Sorry I got sidetracked with work but didn't want to neglect the thread, so thank you for replying everyone. I'll read the posts and reply asap where relevant.

One dd, age 11. Long marriage, decent earning capacity (it's not me, a sibling) as the lower earner is well qualified but works PT currently as does school runs etc. Both parties can be housed adequately from existing assets.

Question is very much about whether spousal would be expected so as to cover the shortfall in income and if so how far would this go into luxuries not just sensible needs.

So as an example would things like her gym membership be included in "needs" given their level of income and lifestyle to date (of course I know it's not actually a need and is a luxury!)

Would leasing a car cover a basic model or would it be more in keeping with prior lifestyle.

Is the higher earner expected to fund such things and if so for how long?

She is most likely going to get a bigger share of assets. Maybe a couple of years of spousal to get to a better income. Although it is always worth noting that spousal income impacts on benefits.

She will need to maximise her income regardless and with an 11 year old she is going to be expected to work sooner rather than later.

If there aren't high net worths involved, then she might get short term spousal but it's needs rather than wants. E.g. if she needs to be able to supplement her income to bridge the gap between what she earns now, and what she'll be expected to do to become independent. If there's spare in the budget then she can probably do a gym membership but it's likely to be Pure Gym rather than David Lloyd.

She does already work but part time so would need to change to full time I guess.

I am surprised at the asset split mentioned above of 70:30. Is that normal? I thought more like 60:40 as a maximum difference these days.

I doubt she'd end up on benefits so don't think that is an issue.

I am still curious about how far needs stretch to luxuries.

What would count as HNW?
I think the dh probably earns about 200k pa but they have school fees for dn, he will pay more CMS as she'll be with her dm more and they both need to pay for housing in an expensive region. Moving too far won't be practical although downsizing is.

On a 200k salary spousal maintenance is massively unlikely.

The lower earner will need to work more and lower their standard of living.

Gym membership and hire of a car would be very unlikely to be included, they would need to find a way of funding themselves.

As the child is 11 are they y6 or y7? As there is an expectation of a reduction in childcare requirements and therefore increase of the parents earning capacity.

But honestly without the exact details no one can advise. Your family member needs to see a solicitor

Spousal is temporary. For example if she wanted to do a course that would enable her to earn more then ex might be ordered to pay for that. Long term costs like gyms are her responsibility unless one of the kids needs the gym for physio purposes in which case ex might pay.

Your sister needs to be careful about school fees. Ex can’t be court ordered to pay school fees and would be allowed to say that the kids need to go to state schools for financial reasons. Being too greedy and asking for more than CMS plus school fees after assets are split, risks him withdrawing the school fees offer.

She should talk with a solicitor about global maintenance which is a combination of spousal and child maintenance which will cover her for 3 years after which it becomes solely child maintenance through the CMS. Global maintenance is court ordered and usually the child maintenance aspect of it is more generous than CMS figures. If I were her, I’d be having that talk with my solicitor.

Needs don’t stretch to luxuries. Nobody needs luxuries. ‘Needs’ is basically the capital she’ll require to buy a comfortable 2 bedroom home outright for herself and her child, since getting a mortgage might be difficult for her. Needs is, “I require a bigger share of the house because I must stay relatively local to my child’s special needs secondary school and the house my children and I require within a 2-3 mile radius of the SEN school costs this much.” That really was my need and yes, it helped me get a larger share of the house. So, I’d really focus on the capital she’ll require to to start again. Yes, she will have to cut her cloth according to her measure but if she wants to have a decent home- small but comfortable and in a similar area where school, work, and community are, she can think about offsetting one asset against another, i.e. ask for a bigger split of the house while agreeing to take a smaller share of his pension (this is an example, not advice. But this gives her more capital up front.).

Thank you. She is seeing a solicitor soon.
It seems things have changed quite a lot in recent years and are less generous to the lower earner. Our cousin divorced ten years ago and it was definitely better for her as lower earner than it sounds like it might be now. And her kids were teens.

I thought that she'd get more support for that equalising of lifestyle factor as he will have higher income even when she works full time for the foreseeable. She is a teaching assistant part time but could maybe retrain in time.

Yes i think he earns about 200, maybe 250 from what dsis knows. They will fill out the forms so she will find out more accurately soon.

I don't think he'd move dd's school unless he lost his job and couldn't get another and seems committed to paying the fees to 18.

The global maintenance comment is wrong. Whilst global maintenance is a combination of child maintenance and spousal maintenance, the child maintenance element will only be more generous unless the payer applies to the CMS which they can do immediately after or even before the order. After that, the global maintenance is paid net of CMS and is all spousal maintenance.

Anyone unwilling to pay e.g. because the recipient is refusing to work full time (and for example working well beneath the earning capacity of a full time worker such as a teaching assistant) will immediately apply to the CMS and pay residual spousal maintenance. Why? Well, because the recipient is likely to be receiving benefits that reduce pound for pound on any spousal earned and the payer will be keen to make the arrangement as uncomfortable for the recipient as possible in order to motivate them to improve their earning capacity and stop being dependent.

But if the lifestyle factor is due to his earnings, and they aren't going to be married any longer, then it can't stay equal, can it? There will be a temporary period of support to help with adjustment and which recognises her contribution. But unless he's earning millions, or she's helped build a business up with him from scratch, she's going to have to downsize and/or try and earn more money if she wants to maintain the lifestyle to which she's become accustomed.

She’s never going to able to support herself on a lot teaching assistants salary.Not even for one ! So she’ll probably need to look for something else.

she may get a few years spousal to assist with this. Or higher share of assets to compensate if he’s on 200k

but she won’t get to continue pt and him support her for long

This is reallly useful. I think she expects the lifestyle will be less good but beyond basics for longer than it sounds like might be the case. I'm sure she will retrain as the TA job isn't going to work now.