Does this seem like a fair financial split? Thoughts please

[Amicablecouple]

Hi everyone,

We are in the process of discussing our finances before the divorce and was wondering if anyone has any opinions as to whether the below would be considered a fair split of assets.

We have been married for 15 years and have 3 fantastic boys (14, 12 and 10)

Assets value (House, cars, savings etc) - £484000
Split -
Me - £282000
Husband - £202000
Difference £80000 in favour of me.

We would both retain our pensions built up prior to meeting. I stopped working to bring up the kids so no pension since meeting and he would share his pension (built up after marriage) on a 50/50 bases. Pension could be split into two pots with me allocated one pot.

We would both share childcare 50/50 with children living with both parents equally.

The reason for the increased asset split in favour of me is because:

I has lower potential income going forward (currently work 3 days a week but even full time my pay is roughly half his) - £20K / year full time for me, £48k / him

I would need to purchase a 4 bedroom house outright (thankfully in our area I could do this with £282000 comfortably).

His split would mean he would need to purchase a 4 bedroom with a mortgage (£700+ per month) which would obviously impact on his monthly income (so even though he will earn more than me, he would have far higher bills to pay).

I have not taken any legal advice yet but would like your thoughts on if this sounds fair. I think with these figures we would have a similar standard of living each afterwards.....which appears to be what the courts are looking at. Have I missed anything? Thoughts? Advice? First hand accounts?

Many thanks for any and all comments 🙂

Is there a big difference in the value of your pensions pre-marriage?

Why is it fair he has to have a mortgage but you don’t? You could get 60-80k mortgage too on full time income

you may likely qualify also for universal credit top ups or tax credit ( or whatever it is) which mean your net income could be similar to his, especially if you keep child benefit …. Hence I don’t think it fair to assume you must have a house fully paid for but he doesn’t

what’s the value of your pension excluded ?

Doesn't really seem fair.

His solicitor should push him to not accept it and go for 50/50 on everything.

20k full time is less than minimum wage. Your figures don’t add up.

I would have thought 50/50 on assets with the exception of pension where I think it's reasonable for you to get some of his pension built up during marriage so that you end up with equal pensions across the time you were married.

I would have thought a judge would also question it given his salary isn't that high.

Your salaries aren't that different so how can you justify the big difference in assets?

Why do you need 4 bedrooms?

If you're both happy with it, that's a big plus.

Court/judge may want to inquire, and see if you've each had advice or a process to arrive at this point. But a 58%/42% split isn't outrageous.

Can you not just split the house equity equally and both be mortgage free? . You will have the children 50/50 and he isn’t on a high income. Seems a bit mad for him to have an 80k mortgage unnecessarily.

It's not outrageous but it isn't really a fair split.

There is no real reasoning behind it other than the OP doesn't want a mortgage.

Both could be mortgage free if they split assets 50/50 and bought a 3 bed each and the two of the kids share. If the OP is on that low an income then it's foolish to take on the running costs of a 4 bedroom house.

The DH could end up sick or unable to work and left unable to pay the mortgage, whilst the OP is mortgage free.

That is not fair and the judge should ask some hard questions on this proposal in the long term.

I don’t think this is a fair split either- I would think 50/50 in this case on pension through marriage and assets.

Perhaps a more suitable arrangement would be to split 50/50 (as above) and your exH pay an agreed amount for a year (less than £700) that gives you some space to manage the mortgage whilst looking to maximise your earning potential. That’s takes your youngest son to secondary school and with 50/50 care and a year to plan you could be in a much better financial position that your 20k a year salary.

I agree with pp.

your future earnings are irrelevant. He shouldn’t be subsidising your lower income. It’s no longer his responsibility to support you.

so split assets, including any pension accumulated within marriage.

your alternative is to let him keep his pension and you take the equivalent out of the assets so you will have a lower mortgage.

Based on your figures he would be silly to accept, he isn't earning a huge amount himself and with dc that age you can easily work full time which is more than £20k plus you'll get the child benefit etc. you may qualify for uc as well. You can get a small mortgage or buy a smaller house, kids don't need their own room

I've read it three times and I can't understand why you are asking if it's fair when you are getting £80,000 more from the house sale because you only work three days.

No, it's not fair.

It seems unreasonable to expect him to bear a penalty for your reduced earning potential.

You could each have 3 bedrooms and perhaps be mortgage free.

You might want the dc to have their own rooms, but won’t it benefit them more, esp. with 50/50 split parenting, if both parents are free of the stress of a mortgage, or only have to pay a small mortgage, and can spend more on doing things with the children? A friend of mine had 4 bedrooms (one was really tiny) and 5 children. The eldest (with SN) had his own room, her dd had her own tiny room. The other 3 ds always shared a room into adulthood, till they left home. They were all fine!

The reason for the increased asset split in favour of me is because

I wouldn't accept the reasons you give here if I was your DH. How can you earn £20k if you work full time-that's less than minimum wage?! He's not on a high wage at all-if he was on £200k I might say differently but not on £48k.

Sell the house, go 50/50 on the equity, share the children 50/50 and both buy a 3-bed house.

To be fair as well the 14 year old could be leaving for uni in 4 years.

so a 4 bed wouldn’t be essential long term.

Presumably your lower earning potential is at least in part because you took a career break to bring up your children so it seems fair to me. If you are not going to be receiving any maintenance then you would find it difficult to pay high mortgage costs so the higher lump sum reflects this.

Realistically on a lower earning potential how is she going to run and maintain a 4 bedroom home?

The logic doesn't stack up against the income.

Plus the lower earning has already been addressed by the 50/50 pension share.

Sounds like 50% would adequately purchase a 3 bed home outright which is much more cost effective to run on a lower wage.

Can't have it both ways.

I can’t imagine that his solicitor would encourage him to accept this to be honest.

Minimum wage jobs at 37.5 hours are more than £20k.
Are you in the UK ?

It is net income that you need to compare. As someone pointed out your actual income must be higher than this because you are entitled to benefits and you can work FT very soon. When net income is compared you will be close together.

You will need to declare full pensions and if you want to negotiate on this point then that needs to be done with full disclosure. You should be equalising pensions and if the approach you are proposing does this then fair enough.

Neither of you need a 4 bed house. A 3 bed is adequate and if you want a bigger home you can’t expect the other parent to pay for it. I think the equity needs to be 50:50 and you need to improve your income considerably. It would be fair to assume you probably have a high income even on benefits.

Thanks for the reply.

Not a huge difference. We were both working full time for about 10 years. His pension is Deferred Benefit however so better than private pension.

The disparity in equity is to offset me not working for 12 years to bring up the kids and therefore reduced job prospects (and salary) going forward. If I had stayed in work I could be on over £35k now.

Both of us would like to kids to have their own bedrooms (as they do now). It will be hard enough on them as it is without having to share bedrooms in a new house they do not see as theirs (or at least familiar) anymore.