Urgent - Does this sound like a fair split of assets on divorce

[Amicablecouple]

My husband (of 16 years) and I are going through a divorce. We just do not love each other anymore and want different things from life now and in the future.

We are talking very amicably and are at present discussing our finances.

I would love to know anyone's thoughts on where we are and if it would (or is) considered a fair split of assets by you or would be by the judge.

Assets
House - £380000 (no mortgage as my husbands parents have given us over £100000 over our marriage to pay off the mortgage)
Money in accounts investments and savings - £65000

We have vehicles etc but these will be easy to split as they are worth pretty much the same so we will just keep our own.

I have been a SAHM for the past 12 years but have been back at work for the last 4 years working 3 days a week. Take home pay for me is £900/month.

My husband works full time and takes home £2600/month

He has a pension which we have decided to split 50/50 for the 16 years we have been together (he has 5 years paying into it before we met which he will keep)

We are looking at a complete 50/50 split of everything.

380000 / 2 = £190000
65000 / 2 = £32500

Total = £222500 each.

We are trying (big priority for us) for him to keep the family home so that it has minimal impact on the Children and I will buy another house and probably take on a small £50k mortgage to do this. I simply could not take on such a large mortgage and would not get one approved either.

My husband will have to take out a large mortgage and will just about struggle to pay it and everything else on his pay but he thinks he can just about manage it for the children's sake even if it is going to be very hard. He will look to sell once on the youngest (now 11) finishes school.

We will share the children on a 50% bases.

I will have to get Universal Credit to help to pay for my mortgage etc. and possibly also work full time.

We have grave concerns that as on paper it will appear to a judge that I will need more of the assets to support me in buying a house (£900 per month is not going to come close to what I will need) but in fact once UC and child benefit are taken into account I will actually be on a similar monthly income to him but he will have a large mortgage and larger household bills (tax, energy etc) so I will probably have a good bit more disposable income than him.

Does anyone know if a judge will take this UC payment into account when judging 'fairness' of the asset split? (I'm obviously not receiving it yet but I will once we fully divorce).

Any advice, thoughts or comments would be VERY greatly received!

My friends made it work. They bought a two double bedroom flat, one bedroom each so no cross/over with sleeping in their exe/s actual beds, etc, and they just didn't cohabit with partners until the kids were at Uni. They both had keys to this flat but respected each other's privacy 100%. It depends if cohabitation is really important to you with your new partner for sure.

You dh will be forking out £1000 a month on mggage repayments out of 2.6k take home.
Is all of this really doable?
I'd also factor in future changes to benefits.

Gosh you're getting a ridiculously hard time here. Op your plan sounds fine. Some lenders will indeed take UC into consideration. I imagine Nationwide might be one of them as they took tax credits into consideration when I was on them post divorce.

Everyone, her youngest is 11 is not like she's going to be on UC for too many more years anyway! And that is what benefits are for..:to top up people who have a change in circumstances and can no longer afford to survive without them.

Im sure you'll cost the government less than someone solely reliant on benefits, housing etc anyway.

Best of luck.

She can take a massive chunk back for 12 years of free childcare she has provided. So ‘morally’ she’s all good there

note her contribution of 12 years of free childcare. She’ll be well on the way to over half the amount.

It’s not something I would consider, it’s not just about new relationships I just wouldn't want that tie to an ex. Everyone’s different though.

Absolutely!

How is £100,000 so much more visible than 12 years’ work in childcare and other SAHM stuff, to a bunch of predominantly women?

OP’s earning potential is substantially lower than it would have been without this career break/time spent working part time, all of which benefitted the whole family.

FWIW, OP, I like the flat idea and i also like the idea of new houses walking distance apart, or even neighbouring terraced/attached semis with just the kids going inbetween (could add a door only they use, and depends on how you and ex feel about your future proximity/love lives). Your kids aren’t long off needing to independently move from mum’s to dad’s as and when they want to, and the closer your places are the easier for them. Make the decision with your ex and present it to them, though, whatever it is. They don’t need the weight of feeling they’ve influenced the outcome.

She could have been a net contributor to the family bank account if she’d worked. Childcare is a joint expense - with 2 parents earning they are both adding to the pot and assets through pensions. I presume she actively chose not to work, as opposed to being locked in the house.

You could argue that she already had “her” contribution to those 12 years of free childcare by being financially supported for the entirety of that time- no?

I could quit my job now and be a SAHM so we’d save on nursery fees, if I did then then my “payment” would be that my husband is paying all of the bills and supporting us all. I’d be a real bitch if I carried on like that for 12 years and then tried to claim I was also entitled to what is essentially inheritance as payment for childcare too.

It’s really unethical to expect universal credit to pay for your mortgage. Not sure why you think it’s up to the tax payer and cannot believe your expecting it tbh.

you will news to come up with a different solution.

this is actually the most unreasonable thing I’ve ever come across on here in nearly a decade. No wonder this country is completely destroyed.

I think the previous post is a bit of an over reaction. As long as someone is working full time and maximising their earning potential as much as possible, it's a sad state of affairs but if they need a top up to have a basic standard of living then that's what UC is there for.

It's not as if xH will be living the high life, sounds like he will be stretched too.

I guess this is also the flip side of 50:50 child arrangements - it means both parties need houses big enough for the kids.

In answer to the original OP, yes I think 50:50 split of assets is more than fair given the substantial inheritance on the xH's side.

I think that your ex should rethink the keeping the marital home at all costs strategy. He’s forking out a crazy percentage of his wages on keeping the house when most kids cope fine with a house move. If he also moves to a house and has a £50k mortgage, he’ll be able to do things like save for the kids futures and hive them experiences like holidays, driving lessons and help at uni. He could lose his job or inflation could rise faster than his wages and he’d be stuck in a giant money sucking house.

IME not changing schools matters a lot more to their feeling of stability but if they have to change schools then it’s not the end of the world if you can plan it so there’s no or minimal transition points later. (what I mean is if the primary that you move to feeds into a secondary that you want then that makes sense. ) You are part of their memories of the house and your ex living there will be a constant reminder that you don’t and should he ever date again, the gf will seeml like the interloper (you are the woman who should be living there) .

Just to add I had a divorce with large inheritance on xH's side. I had some conflicting advice (including on here) from that I was grabby for thinking I should have a share of it, to of course it's in the marital pot as it was used for the mortgage etc and was over 10 yrs ago.
My solicitor thought I'd have a good case if it went to court. But the mediator said it was more of a grey area and if there was enough in the "pot" without the inheritance to meet mine and the children's needs (which there was) then a judge might agree to ring fence it.
In the end I wanted to avoid court and a drawn out expensive process and I agreed to him keeping most of it. We off set it with his big pension so that I had enough to buy a house outright for the kids and I. (They're with me 80% of the time).

but I think this is everyone’s point! No wonder Starmer is having to make huge cuts if this is what UC can genuinely stretch to. It’s absolutely insane!

I see what you mean.
Yes it is, but isn't that more about the cost of housing and living now compared to wages?
I work in a civil service department and the union published some statistics. Something like 20% of their members were working full time but also claiming universal credit top ups! Our own government employees.

I see that, and agree, in part. Ultimately, it should be a partnership so it is always difficult when it ends up like this, and the only winners really are the legal people. Genuine question then, does the fact that all the bills / mortgage were paid during the raising of the children not count in any way? I know it wouldn't if one were paying on the open market for child care, but being a stay at home mother isn't a completely one way street. I know this is a contentious view, and actually, I am ambivalent one way or the other, just curious.

The OP isn’t working f/t though - 12 years of not working, 4 working p/t. Those are years when joint assets weren’t being built, and now the plan is to apply for a benefit in order to secure a mortgage to get a property that’s beyond her means. It beggars belief that the benefit system is set up to enable this - no wonder there’s a backlash against these payments.

@HappiestSleeping I think it's an interesting point, and also relevant whether you see the ability to be a SAHM as a privilege or not. I do.

Yes my career suffered because I stayed at home/worked part time more than DH. But I was wanting to do that and pleased that I could due to his earnings. I had a lovely time mostly! 😆

It's possible that if you spend too much of savings on the house you could be considered to have deprived yourself of savings to claim benefits. This is because if you are not the main carer of the children, the argument is that you don't need more than a one bedroom place. This is how absent fathers are treated usually when houses or claiming help with rent. You should definitely seem full time work now as it will be a lot better for you than weekly appointments at the job centre and invitations to have all sorts of job interviews which may not be quite your thing.

It is a very interesting discussion point. There are so many facets to it. Also, his parents presumably gifted with the expectation that this would not be the outcome, however a gift is a gift, and should not be made with caveats.

While I see @Darhon 's view, I am not sure I agree with it completely. One does not necessarily win outright over the other. And 100k is a fair chunk of wedge. One could also view that it would require earnings of the best part of 200k to have 100k remaining after tax.

It is a hugely complicated issue.

When people break up a drop in the standard of living is quite usual it just depends how much of a drop. What kind of house could be bought outright by both of you if any. Reading about the UC issue I have to agree why the benefits bill is out of control.

It’s a privilege for the whole family, in situations where it’s a choice. So lovely to have a SAHP when you’re working, you both get more downtime, don’t worry about when the kids are ill.

Yes I agree.

So should the SAHP be financially "compensated" in the event of a split. If a conscious decision was made to prioritise time at home with the kids over career.

i think that as long as children’s needs can be met, 50/50 is fair and kind of “compensation” enough

Utter rubbish

Where do you people get this stuff? It's rubbish . . .