paying money to EX after divorce??

[whogivesaduck1]

Jon is 43, May is 63. they have been married for 22yrs. May has 2 daughters that Jon bought up and supported. They also have a daughter together. As of this year their daughter is 23 and married herself, and the stepdaughters are 30 and 34. May has never worked, she spent all her years bringing up the kids from her first marriage and then the daughter from hers and Jons marriage.

Jon decides that May is not what he wants any more. He and May sell the family home and Jon buys a 2 bedroom house for May to live in alone. Jon lives else where. Jon also pays May £400 a month as well as the mortgage for her house.

Jon earns £72000 a year. May does not have a job, but there is no reason as to why she cannot work.

If they were to divorce, is it likely that Jon would have to pay any maintenance to May?
If she is to keep the house ( in both their names but he pays for it, and she lives in it) would he be required to still pay her money (eg £400)
Jon is with a new partner and they are getting married as soon as his and Mays divorce comes through and will be trying for a baby.

any advice and knowledge of any similar situations would be great.

thanks

No idea about the legalities of the divorce but surely because May was born pre 1950 she is a pensioner so that is a reason not to work.

Any way, have bumped this at least.

I think in this situation it is most likely that May and Jon would have a clean break settlement, in which case the marital assets would be assessed and May would be given her share, calculated by their years of marriage, her contributions and needs, etc. What May did with this sum of money would then be up to her. But it is unlikely that Jon would be expected to continue to give her maintenance as there are no dependent children at home.

Hello Jon. sowornout is correct in that a clean break settlement is what the courts would go for if it can be achieved, but if it can't then yes, Jon certainly will have to pay spousal maintenance to May. I note that he is much younger than her and so it may be that there is not a huge amount of capital.

May has never worked because she has been raising the child of the marriage. Presumably by agreement with Jon. It is not the case that she will suddenly be expected to go out and get a career. She will probably be expected to find some sort of job, but given her lack of earning capacity it's unlikely to pay well and Jon will have to pay maintenance as well, unless he can give her a capital sum large enough to live off.

Also, given May's age and the length of the marriage, Jon will probably be faced with a pension sharing order (if he has a pension).

The fact that Jon wants to get married again and have another baby will not affect his obligations towards May in the divorce.

John is getting off very lightly if his maintenance liability is a mere £400 a month. He should expect to pay a hefty chunk of his income in maintenance.

He would only get a clean break if there is enough capital (on his side - the assets of the marriage should be split equally) to capitalise the maintenance.

At £75k his net income would be around £4200 a month. I would expect that the starting point for negotiations over quantum of maintenance would be in the region of £1200-1300 a month. To capitalise that would cost a very large amount of money. Look at the duxbury tables.

At 63, never having worked in the marriage, no judge would expect the wife to have an earning capacity.

thanks for your responses.

i personally think it is a damn outrage that he needs to pay for her. I think he paid enough bring up her children.

But that is my personal feeling towards her come out.

thanks again for you help.

Ah I thought you were probably the other woman.

He has free will. She raised his child too and didn't force him to be with her. Thank goodness the law has a bit more compassion. Particularly if Jon decides you're "not what he wants any more" somewhere down the line. You might need that compassion too.

Shouldn't have married her if he didn't want any legal responsibility for her. That's the commitment you enter in to upon marriage.

The thing is - she brought up his children and in return sacrificed the opportunity to have a career. It's called relationship generated economic disadvantage.

Cheer up, on those earnings there should be enough money to keep everyone happy!!!

Completely agree with Collaborate and Celine. The law recognises the contribution of wives to (1) the careers of their husbands and (2) family life. If a husband decides to cast the old girl on the scrap heap and trade up to a younger model, the younger model needs to understand that she has a smaller slice of the pie, and £72,000 a year doesn't go far when maintaining 2 separate households.

ah, so it is a real 'problem'. I thought it was a law student who had a paper to write

ginda , actually i was asking because he currently pays a lot less. take £800-£900 from what Collaborate quoted. so as you can see there is still quite a bit left for us!

I think you should perhaps lean the facts instead of insinuating that he dumped the 'old girl' for a 'younger model' .
he actually decided before we met that she was a boring, fat old bag and didn?t love her anymore.

Collaborate thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I very much appreciate it.

whogivesaduck that is horrible.

i know kaloobear, at least he is getting out of it now

Is it just me or was that OP most odd?

I don't think you can say she never worked. She was never paid for her work but prob brought invisible earnings of about £40k pa to the table (free childcare, housekeeping etc) which allowed john to earn his salary. So why shouldn't she be compensated for that?

Let's not hope in 20 years of marriage he does the same to you, perhaps then you'll understand. I wonder where he would be in his career if he'd had to do all the childcare for his own child including taking time off for sickness etc.

I also, as a step parent, seriously hope that he isn't letting the two older daughters know that he views bringing them up as some kind of payment to their mother for what, services rendered? I imagine that after that long with their mum they regard him as a father figure, it would be heartbreaking for them to find out he doesn't feel like that.

I personally think Jon sounds a deeply unpleasant person and am damned glad I'M not with him. He decided she was 'a boring fat old hag'. Very nice words for a woman you've been married 22 years to. And he's giving her less than £400 a month to live on out of his £72,000 a year? What a prince.

Whogivesaduck, I am a lawyer. I know the law.

On a non-legal level, I would second the unanimous views on this thread as to your nature.

One day you will be the fat old bag. Start saving up.

And you should also bear in mind that the payment holiday your Prince Charming has been enjoying will come to an abrupt end when May goes legal on him. So you'd better start cutting your cloth from something rather cheaper than you've had in mind.

whogivesaduck I can hardly believe I'm clarifying, but it is you who is being horrible.

ginda, i never disputed that you was a lawyer!

ok, well thanks for all your help. i will hide this thread now.

...taking "callous and grasping" to a whole new level.

I sincerely hope the 'fat old bag' will consult a solicitor when the divorce proceedings start (she'd be crazy if she didn't and its usual for the petitioners solicitor to advise this, especially as her Stbx would likely foot the whole bill).

She will no doubt get a significant increase in her monthly maintenance as well as 22 years worth of his pension provision. Either way divorce and a legalisation of Jon's payments will benefit her.

To maintain the income the grasping OP is currently enjoying Jon's divorce would not suit her situation. However if she doesn't get that ring on her finger her OWN financial rights in the future would be seriously jeopardised.

I call that poetic justice