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 🙂

@Amicablecouple

You obviously think this is fair so why ask Mumsnet?

The majority of posters disagree with you but if you think it's right why are you asking?

If we did that I would push for his total pension pot (before and during marriage) to be included. What tiny pension I accumulated prior to giving up work to have the children will make virtually no difference.

He has been working as a teacher for 25 years so has built up quite a large pension (15 paying into it while married). This would possibly be better financially for me (in the long run) if we split the total pension pot 50/50.

Both of us would like to kids to have their own bedrooms

I don't think you are being very realistic. Your income appears to be less than minimum wage and your DH's isn't massive. Many people with dual incomes can't afford a 4-bed house. It will be interesting to see what his solicitor says to your proposal; I can't imagine they will agree.

Yeah this isn't fair at all. You need to support yourself now as does he. Splitting the pension saved while you were together for sure, splitting the house of course. But then it's even moving forward.

Hopefully he'll get legal advice that would advise against taking this proposal. You can then start to work on a more realistic proposal or go to court to sort it out.

This was in deed the reasoning behind it. Thank you

Why is there no middle ground? If you can 'easily' afford a 4 bed on 282k, and he would need a mortgage of around 80k with 200k, why not both get a small mortgage and have 240k each? Or less 'easily' afford a 4 bed?

Then a split of the portion of pension accrued during marriage, but not touching that from before would make sense.

What do you do for work now, @Amicablecouple? There's no reason why being a SAHM means you should now work for less than minimum wage.

I think you going full time and a 50/50 share of the equity with a 3-bed house each is reasonable.

If he has some kind of final salary pension you need to get an actuary to work out what % you would be ‘owed.’ You can’t just say have 50% of it.

Other than that looks okay to me. I got more equity in lieu of pension so it was 50/50 overall. However we both earn a lot more than you.

It seems within the bounds of fairness to me.

His pension will be really good, but it is years away.

But he will have his idea of fair and you should both be prepared to compromise. With those kinds of assets, any legal argument will consume large chunks of it very quickly.

At the minute I work 3 days and take home 900/month. I am an LSA in a school. As I dont work full time yet it is safe (ish) to assume my take home will be under £1500 after deductions. His take home is £2600 after deductions. I did earn £30k before giving up work to have children...this could easily have been £35k+ if id not stopped working.

I see-LSApay is so low because you can't do standard full time hours. I think you'd be better off getting a job where you can.

His full time is over double her full time equivalent?

Your kids are old enough that you could be back in work work, with more hours. LSA is pretty much as low as it gets, both in terms of hours and salary especially given it is term time only.

2600 net isn't a lot, if you're talking about him having a reasonable sized mortgage. Especially as you're likely to be eligible for financial help etc, won't need childcare etc

Why should you get a share of his pension from before he met you?

I may be wrong but I believe this is only considered if the break was necessary to support his career and you could not work due to his hours or job commitments.

this is usually the only reason spousal support is granted- and that is what your division boils down to, you’re asking for 80k in support for the next few years. he’s effectively paying your mortgage.

if you think it’s fair get legal advice. But unfair divisions in assets are usually when the marital home can’t be split into 2.

That’s not his problem though. If she wants or needs to earn more items for her to figure out.

no one is obliged to make up someone’s lower wages if they aren’t married to them.

If his salary had soared I would kind of understand, but he is still not on a massive salary either by any means.

I’m not saying it is, I was just commenting on the post that said their wages were similar 😁

You’re asking him to take big mortgage in terms of monthly payment vs his outgoings yet you’re not doing the same. That’s not fair

and you haven't addressed
what will your take home be once full time AND child benefit AND universal credit….. there is no reason at all why you cannot work full time now, and also find a better paying job too.

if he earns 2600 a month then 700 mortgage plus bills plus food and living will leave him little. I expect when you add your income up you’ll have more and no mortgage. If I was his solicitor I would not accept this split.

My understanding is that is the case. All pensions to be split. That includes ALL pensions. This is my understanding anyway. The judges will try to make us both on equal footing after the split and going forward (which is where the 80k comes from). His DB pension (total for all years) will be worth more than that to me if we split the lot (25 years of pension contributions) from a Teachers Pension

His full time is over double her full time equivalent?

She's chosen to work in a job where the 'full time' hours are not full time.

As an LSA, you can't work 37.5 hours as the children aren't in that many hours, so it's effectively a part time job.

I doubt any solicitor will expect him to take out a mortgage so that she can work part time and have a mortgage-free 4-bed house!

Completely agree. He’s not even on 50k a year, you’d think it was over 200k looking at some of these posts.

You need to work full time - why should he work full time and you only do school hours 3 days a week?

Don't be so lazy