Financial settlement - panicking

[CucumberMelon]

Hi, this is going to be long so apologies for that.

My husband has left me within the last month after a period of mental abuse/cheating. Last year, he also revealed to me that he had been hiding £15K of credit card debt from me which we paid off with some extra borrowing on a remortgage (he has since taken a loan out and paid me that back, which is odd behaviour) I also found out that the job he was made redundant from last year - he was actually sacked for bullying two female colleagues. Apparently he had multiple warnings before they eventually sacked him. His new workplace are unaware of this which I find terrifying but this all outlines what type of character he turned out to be.

We were married for 2.5 years but living together for 5 years in total.

I paid all of the deposit on the marital home from a settlement from my first divorce. In the same settlement I was also awarded a share of my ex husband's pension - the pot now stands at around £300K. This has grown due to passively over the last five years and I don't contribute anything towards it.

My STBXH has nothing. No assets or anything. He is feckless with money and has debts.

I have spoken to a solicitor who gave me a really grim view of what he could take from me and I am spiralling. He is a higher earner than me (I earn £26K and he earns around £39K) and could get a new property with a smaller share of the equity from this house than I could with a smaller share. My proposal would be that I keep the deposit and offer him the equity accrued in the marriage and then a larger chunk of my pension. My immediate concern is being able to afford somewhere to live.

The equity in the house is around £130,000 (£111,000 of that is my deposit) so I would like to offer him £29,000 and possibly up to £100,000 of my pension.

I should also say that he doesn't have the means to fight me in court. I don't really have any means to fight him either but I could lay my hands on funds if absolutely necessary.

If I made him this kind of offer and accepted, what is the likelihood that the court would agree it?

I am very battered and anxious so empathy would be hugely appreciated. Thank you.

I wouldn’t be offering anywhere near that. I’d be asking to be reset to your respective positions in entering the marriage.

it’s a short marriage with no dependents.

certainly would not offer anything like that on pension!

No advice but I'm in a similar position and have just offered my ex 50/50 because I cba with the stress of the court not sealing it. We are also really on in the divorce and I just want peace at this stage (been feeling like this for years).

I hope someone comes along who can answer you.

I should add that we've been married much longer than you.

Op, go and see another solicitor. I would also be offering only his share of money made on the house in that time but only if he has been contributing to it fairly. Has he got a pension? Why can't you claim on his pension if he claims on yours? It's a really short marriage and no kids to consider. It shouldn't really be a big negotiation.

Thanks so much for the replies so far - very grateful!

The solicitor I saw was adamant that because we've got 5.5 years under our belts living together that this would not be viewed as a short marriage and 50/50 would be the almost inevitable outcome. I was absolutely shaken.

He has an absolutely tiny pension of about £10-12K - he has paid the bare minimum in for hardly any time at all.

I'm not expecting to give him nothing but I cannot handle the stress and expense of this not being signed off by a judge. I need to look as fair as I can whilst protecting myself.

I'm just wondering if the solicitor saw ££££'s potentially and has tried to scare me a bit? I don't know if that's how they work but I did not come out of that meeting feeling good. Intelligent people that I've told don't understand her mindset either.

I did consult a solicitor prior to pressing the button on divorce and they also said 50/50 which made me baulk (similar situation to you only mine spent money on anything but making sure they saved or put into pension). Honestly makes me feel like I'm being penalised for his poor money management. Especially since I paid all the bills on the house for 2.5 out of 5 years of ownership and set up his private pension and made sure he contributed to it.

Tactics!
If your solicitor writes to him, with a proposal reflecting your suggestion and saying it makes legal sense, then it's possible he'll just believe it. It's only if he seeks independent advice that he might challenge that ... However, only 2.5 years married and no children, going back to original situation (or similar) might fly as a legal argument.

This would have been my opening gambit but she just didn't suggest that at all. No tactics mentioned - just seemed like she would be prepared to roll over.

She did say she could probably get me another £7000 of equity due to his higher earnings but that was the only thing in my favour that she mentioned.

It doesn't sound like he is someone who values a pension and I think you are way too generous with your 100K offer given it is such a short relationship, so I would focus on the equity and just offer him half of the £29K and leave it at that. That is more than he had coming into this marriage and because the marriage is short the focus from a legal point of view is to make sure neither of you walk away with considerably less than you came into the marriage with, or at least as close to the original position as possible.

Different solicitor!

He absolutely does not value a pension but I can imagine he'd value it a whole lot more if it was me funding it for him, the absolute horror.

She just kept telling me that this isn't a short marriage wtf?

You need a decent solicitor, not just the first one you speak to.
A decent one will tell you that dh can't get a penny of your former husband's pension - as it's not an asset you have provided / contributed to.
and it's a 2.5 year marriage, not 5+ years.

Take it to Court if soontobe dh can't afford Court - he will settle quicker.

Definitely try another better solicitor. After 2.5 years I’d be giving him FA except what he brought into the marriage himself.

I guess it depends on how long the relationship lasted. I know you said you have been married for 2.5 years, lived together for 5 years but how long were you together before that? If it wasn't an extraordinary length of time I really don't they would count those years and it is also very hard to prove that you were in a proper committed relationship. It could have been a friendship or fwb situation.

I would really not be happy for this to be considered anything but a short marriage and I think if you are going to have your solicitor write to your ex you need one who can emphasise that this is indeed a short marriage and as a rule of thumb you leave with what you brought in + share anything gained since marriage.

If he agrees the split don't worry about the judge nor signing it off. It's rare they don't.

I think there’s a difference between what he could get awarded if it goes to court and what he may accept. I would offer him a settlement of 50% of the increase of the house equity between when he moved in and now so £14,500 in return for the clean break and no strings attached, he just might accept. If he doesn’t ask him to counter it. Now he left you so you may find he just wants out, explain he owes on the mortgage 50% until he signs the agreement, I suspect he’ll just want to walk away, £14,500 is a good bonus

We were together 7 years in total - 2 of those he lived in a rented place. Then he moved in with me into my former marital home and just gave me money towards food and energy bills.

Everything I've Googled states that because we lived together 5 years that the court would class it as a medium term marriage - I am absolutely fuming about this.

I can see that to him, £14,500 would be a good result as he has nothing but there will be a solicitor looking to make money from him, telling him he can go for more...

I am not sure about that. Some say 5 years or less consitutes as a short marriage, some say anything under 5 is a short marriage so you are very much on the cusp. For how long were you actually living together? Like in years and months until you broke up.

I would find a solicitor who will send him a letter stating that as the marriage was 2.5 years and you lived together for 5 years it is commonly considered a short marriage. The division of assets should therefore reflect that and only assets gained throughout the course of the relationship should be part of the financial settlement.

There is every chance that he will google this, find that it looks correct enough not to challenge. Especially if he can't afford legal fees.

being married and no being married are different. you were not married over 5 years. it seems crazy from a legal standpoint that she is not differentiating.

No advice but just wanted to say isnt the pension system mental.
People should just be able to keep it separately and not have to give any to anyone.
The fact that you get some of your ex husbands and now your new husband gets some of yours . Does your ex husband get some of yours?
Wouldn't be a lot simpler if we could just keep our own .

No, it makes perfect sense in long marriages where you have had children and when one spouse have sacrificed their earning potential/taken maternity leave to look after the children. In this case though, I don't think it makes any sense.

Don't offer anything. Go your way and never see that p of s again

I agree in different circumstances. Or couples should try to make up the shortfall for when one is on maternity leave /childcare reasons.
But not if one person makes the decision not to work.
Or if one just has a better job. It seems unfair that you then have to hand lots over .
Obviously if stay together and just share when retired then thats just normal.
But when split up especially after abuse/affairs and such. Its just such an infuriating system at times

Well women are still getting paid less than men for the same work so men will be able to save more towards their pensions than women even if they have the exact same job and works the same amount of hours. it's not about giving lots of money away, it's about evening it out because both have contributed.