Financial Settlement

[Meggymoo85]

Im about to go to mediation with my ex husband.
Our situation is that we both earn around the same (£55k ish) and have £300k in house equity between us.
However, my pension is much bigger than his - mine is estimated to be £200k and his is around £50.

We have 3 DC who live with me and spend one night a week with exH.

Ive offered him 50% share of the house and in return asked that he leave my pension alone. He initially agreed but has since changed his mind.

So, given that the kids live with me, ive decided to push for a 60% share of the equity and will offer a portion of my pension to make up for it.

Does this seem fair? EX Wants 50% of the house and a share of my pension. Im unwilling to do this as I have primary care of the kids and need to house them suitably.
But, on the other hand, I just want this to be over and am losing sight of what's realistic.

do You have a good solicitor? I got 70% of the equity and kept my pension. You need to fight harder !

I have agreed to 50/50 of the equity- thats what the deal was. But it seems he wants more than that. I think he plans to ask for a pension share or a greater share of the house equity.
I just cant afford to give him more equity - i won't be able to house the kids. I can barley afford my mortgage at the moment.
If that means giving him more pension then ill just have to do it.
I just dont know why 50/50 is fair, given that I have the kids.
Many people I know who have primary custody of the kids, have a split in their favour.
But I suppose my income and pension pot is the problem.

This could go badly for you in court as he could well claim, given his mental health conditions, he needs more financial security than you.

If I were you, I would counter offer something like 55% of the equity, leave pension alone or 50% equity 10% pension. In my professional experience, women overvalue the house Vs pension - do try and take a step back and look at the relative value of each.

How long were you married and was any of the pension accrued before marriage? I successfully argued that one of my pensions (paid into for 10 years was pre marriage) and that the second one paid into during marriage I needed to keep 100% because realistically due to his low earnings and my higher one (x3 higher) it would be me supporting children as young adults during my pension years (my pension was worth x10 his)

Oh and I argued as ex wasn’t having any overnights at all that equity split would’ve 65/35 in my favour

I don’t think that 50/50 is fair at all!! Why would you agree to that?

How old are the kids?
At least 2 have to be same sex & why can't those 2 share a room?
Are they in a local school they are happy in and will be able to attend for years to come, moving out of catchment would be create difficult commute?

If kids' needs are put first then in my mind, OP (who has kids 6/7 days a week) has good case for somewhat uneven split, but partly depends on kids' needs in next few yrs, too. Maybe they are small & can all share, maybe 2 are actually adults who should be paying their way.

It's about the total asset split - you have 450k of assets. 50% of the equity gives him 150k or 1/3 of the total assets. Adding in his own 50k pension gives him 200k or 45% of the assets

You could argue you will be having the kids resident with you but he could equally argue he is vulnerable due to his mental health conditions. I think what you have offered is fair enough but if you want to avoid court, offering a small % of pension on top is your best bet

OP has said age of DC, 9, 13 and 14.

You are married and as such you are both joint owners of all the assets of the marriage. The starting point is therefore a 50/50 division of all the assets including pensions.

Fighting for more than that comes down to needs. Children only comes into it if you can evidence that you can't meet their (and then your) needs with 50%. The ongoing support relating to the children is dealth with under child maintenance.

The starting point will be 50/50 of the equity and equalising your pensions. If you want more equity, you might have to consider a higher share of your pension.

You say that the children all need their own room. Unless when suffers from a disability that requires their own space and the other two are different sexes, it's highly unlikely this will be considered an essential need by a judge. If you can afford a decently spacious home close enough to their school with 50% equity, that will meet their needs.

You currently earn the same with the same chance to increase your pension over a reasonable amount of years.

If anything, it does sound Like he can justify, due to his health issues, that his needs are greater.

I think you are at risk of falling victim to all the extra money you are fighting for ending up in the pocket of solicitors rather than yours if you are not prepared to shift your mindset and look at your situation more objectively. I know it is hard, but it is worth it dor a better outcome.

Why don’t you think it’s fair to be 50:50 on everything?

Thank you. I appreciate the replies.

Its all difficult to get my head around. Its a long story, but as you can imagine, being married to someone with such severe mental health conditions has been challenging. And his behaviour since separation has been awful. Mainly, I think because of his mental health struggles and its taken him a long time to adjust to a new setup. Which I understand.

Ive struggled for years to keep everything afloat, while working and making sure that the kids aren't affected.
So, I guess I feel aggrieved now that im left to cope with the kids on my own for the most part, while he does the very bare minimum.
I know I need to put my anger to one side and just accept the reality of the situation.

I cant let my boys share a room, they wouldn't cope. Its just won't work for us. But I can accept that that'll mean I have to sleep in the living room for a few years. I understand that compromises have to be made.

I guess what im struggling with is the idea that our needs are equal. He only has to house himself, I have to house me and 3 kids. He can work and is highly qualified in his field. He has the potential to earn a lot more. My future earning potential is limited for the forseeable because i have 3 kids to look after - get to school, sick days, take to clubs, pick up from rugby etc.. So, why is a 50/50 split right?
He pays maintenance, but ill still need a bigger mortgage because he can get a small house - i need something that suits us all.
Our needs are not equal.

It doesn't feel right, but equally I dont want to go into mediation and fight for something that isnt obtainable.

It's confusing because you've said his earning potential and pension pot has been limited by his MH issues but now you're saying this is actually unlimited and that he can earn a lot more.

I'm coming at this from a POV that I've taken time out to look after children and therefore don't have as big a pension as my husband. If we were to divorce and he tried to argue that he was entitled to his entire pension pot I would be furious because like you and your husband, we've made decisions jointly during our marriage that have affected our pensions.

I agree with you that you need more equity for a better sized house if you're having the kids full time. But then again you've said the kids absolutely can't share a room but then expect them to share whilst at their dads. Which one is it? Can they share or not?

Could you agree to give up some of your pension to get more equity? That's what I would do. Your house will also be a pension for you in the future.

Why can’t they share? You do realise most siblings do share don’t you? Also, if they cant share at yours, they also can’t share at their dads. In addition, there are millions of women who are single parents and work at well paid, high powered jobs at the same time.

I get where you are coming from as it’s very emotive and hard, but the reality is that he still needs to have room for the 3 kids to sleep when he has them - whether that’s a day a week or 5. It’s the same need in terms of rooms. You can’t argue you need 4 bedrooms and he only needs 2 so the 3 boys will all cram into a room when with him as that’s not fair on anyone.
i do think 50/50 is the fairest way as his earning potential is limited, and your mortgage affordability will be increased when you add his maintenance payments and child benefit.

But he also has to house 3 kids as they will be at his house too and his house will also be their home.

I can understand why op feels needs are not the sane - the reality is her house is the kids home, where they spend 300 nights a week. Op ex is a house they will visit once a week. It’s not the sane in terms of needing the same space. If he was having them more then yes.

op you can do mediation and put your points across and see where you get to.

I think you need to come to terms with the reality that pensions, savings and equity get shared in a divorce. That is usually done to make you both equal when addressing needs. As part of the process you will both be required to set out your future income and expenses when you live apart as parents. You will be receiving child benefits and child support in addition to your net salary (which be lower than his if you pay into a pension and he doesn’t). The child support will be a deduction for him.

Once you see those figures you and your lawyer can start constructing relevant and persuasive arguments and evidence for a bigger share. But it is worth knowing and remembering a judge won’t spend a lot of time considering what should be a straightforward case. The reality is the numbers will do the talking. Therefore your arguments need to be on point and pertinent. The critique you are getting here will help see the flaws and contradictions.

My advice is run the numbers and listen to what he has to say to understand his position and likely arguments. Then respond and build your case.

This is relevant but a lot depends on the current housing situation. If the OP is in the family home and he is in a small rental then the current situation might not be the future one. He could state in court he wants his children 2-3 nights per week and he needs a home that is equal to the OPs otherwise he is prevented in fulfilling his role as a father. Which answers the OPs concerns about not having time to pursue her career.

The OP is throwing a kitchen of arguments about at the moment. She would be better off not giving him ammunition to construct his counters by throwing some of the contradictions back in her face.

The numbers might be in her favour anyway. No need to preempt them.

I think you need a better solicitor with experience of severe mental health issues. Your solicitor should be advising you better/more strongly.

I wonder if the complexity of your situation means a mesher order would be preferable.

I meant the ops future house not the current fmh. That is when she moves the children will move and their home is with mum, of course he can ask for more time but based purely on what op is saying that is not best for them and they’re unlikely to want to go.

it probably is ok for kids to share a room at dads one night a week but not to want to to do that in their main home for 6 nights a week

Thanks all. Its been really helpful to read everyone's comments and thoughts.

I think what i need to do is to take a step back and look at the situation more objectively.
Ill go into mediation with a clear idea of what I want, but will also be more open to compromising and listening to his perspective.
I suppose I have to realise that things may well not go the way I hope, and ill just have to get on with it if thats the case.

OP I relate to so much of what you say, and basically just want to say it's not fair. My situation isn't quite the same but I do feel like the likelihood is that a court would give him an awful lot more than my ex is saying he wants, because of his vulnerability and that he's effectively unmortgageable. It feels like the principles are there to protect people (usually women) who sacrificed earnings and potential to raise a family. But if you did the majority and he didn't/ couldn't work, it leaves you very exposed. Good luck. If you're able to update, I'd love to hear how you get on?