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 🙂

I agree. And the missing pension for all those years. I've no idea why pp think it's an unfair split? He wants a larger house so he's planning in getting a mortgage, that's on him

£80k for 12 years’ work as SAHM and the damage done to your earning potential isn’t that much. I think posters saying you should take 50:50 are people who don’t value that work/sacrifice at all.

A 4-bed for less than £300k?? Where in the country are you? That would cost closer to £450k near me.

It’s nothing to do with not valuing it staying at home or going part time.
it’s simple maths

op has pension share so compensated for that loss.
his earnings are not high

op is not maximising her salary yet her INCOME a month will be near the same but with no mortgage while her ex , who has exactly the same housing needs , has to spend near 30% of income on a mortgage while op exists to be mortgage free. Thats not a fair outcome for him at all

op has every opportunity to return full time and improve her earnings too

Your children are well past the age of needing constant childcare. There is no reason for you not working full time, even if that means you need to find another job.

Both of them seem to have decided that they need a 4-bed house which is not something anyone I know prioritised on divorce, especially when neither were high earners. I'm guessing they live in a very cheap part of the country though!

Posters are always urging women on here not to give up their financial independence/pension and this is why. There is no reasons now for OP to work in a job where she can't do full time hours. Even a minimum wage one but one where you can work full time is going to be better.

Op working full time in min wage job = annual Salary 24k per mth take home c1720

add on cb and uc of 800 per month = income per month 2600….. and that’s before op seeks better paid work - plus exisctstion if no mortgage …. But same income as ex

and that’s before op seeks better paid work

The problem with OP's current job is that although it might pay virtually minimum wage, there's not the possibility of working full time hours as the children don't do 37 hours.

I understand that. But there’s nothing stopping her from seeking alternative work to get better income - like we all have to do

Oh, I'm not disagreeing-I completely agree with you, was just saying the OP can't just 'go full time' in hr current job and expect the DH to take out a mortgage whilst she has none.

Even if she goes FT in a different job, she’s likely to earn a lot less than her husband, whose career was not impacted by children because she took that hit for both of them. I don’t agree that 50:50 pension is enough recognition of this.

Not if he’s having to pay £700 a month mortgage and she isn’t for equivalent properties.

add in CB and UC and their net pay will be roughly the same.

he shouldn’t be losing out because she doesn’t get paid as much.

she didn’t give up her job to support him in his high flying career, he’s only earning an ok wage.

this is why you don’t give up your job and financial independence. Even if you’re married it will be you that loses out on divorce as you will be expected to pay your own way after.

Why, when she’s sacrificed career for the children and he hasn’t?

because op could earn more but is chosing not to …

it’s not about compensating her for lost wages or anything. It’s about recognising the equal contribution of both parties - op in child rearing , op ex in financial. Op benefited by her ex working ft to allow her to stay home/pt, ex benefited by op looking after the children.
op career was not high paying- it’s possible but not guaranteed she would be on 35k now and that in itself is not high wage vs what she could earn now simply doing any minimum wage full time job. And nothing to stop her earning more but she’s chosing not to.

a court would look at her earning potential

nearer to 50:50 is fair when you consider monthly incomes and income potential but as said, if he agrees to this it’s likely to go through if both parties have had independent legal advice and understand their position. But it’s not fair and with the ages of children there is nothing to stop op advancing a career

OP’s idea is closeish to 50/50.

In a ‘needs based’ settlement after a long marriage, both parties should end up enjoying roughly the same lifestyle after the split.

Her slightly higher number will balance with his higher pension and earnings.

The OP doesn’t have any basis to use this argument. Her salary was 30k when she chose to be a SAHP. Her career trajectory put her on £35k. With benefits and working FT that’s where she is now. There is barely any detriment and her career trajectory can be restored because she is young.

Again it is income that is compared not salary. When this happens they both be in the same position. His take home will be about 2.5 when pension contributions ad tax are deduced. when benefits are added to the OPs income she will be on about the same.

Career sacrifice is pertinent is there has been a detriment. Someone in a professional job who cannot go back into the role they did before and where there is a material loss in income potential. Even then the period of adjustment is not for ever unless they are close to retirement.

In detriment here is loss of pension savings. If these are equalised then it is fair.

Agree with lemonTT who puts it more succinctly than me

its a needs based divorce but both parties have the same needs for housing and the same net monthly income. Hence sane needs

anyway, op asked for opinions. She has them. She believes it fair. If her ex does too ( he shouldn’t but up to him) it will likely go through IF he’s had independent legal advice.