Any divorce lawyers - what’s your honest opinion?

[Thereslifeafternappybags]

Two friends of mine are divorcing. They have only been married 2 years but together for over 12.

The only asset they have is a flat. This is in A’s name only and the deposit was paid with a “gift” from their parents. The mortgage and bills have always been paid, in full, by Friend A who is high-earning.

Friend B has not been earning since Covid because A encouraged them to stay home and be a homemaker. They have no kids but did have a dog (who was recently PTS, post separation, as it was time). They have occasionally contributed to house maintenance such as a new boiler, but it has been minimal.

Equity in the flat is likely to be around £100k but there are also credit card debts of around £30k. There are no savings other than for end-of-year tax return (A is self-employed).

What is a judge likely to rule for the Final Settlement? B is adamant they are going for 50% but I am concerned they are deluded…

30k of debt, no savings and one of them decided not to work and be a homemaker?
They both sound stupid. Don’t get involved.

Thanks @Bobiverse - really helpful post there. Well worth your time in typing.

And yes. They are both stupid. Clearly. However, B in particular, is my friend. And I would like to help manage their expectations if necessary.

If you had some friend, you might understand.

They are both your friends, and it is never ever a good idea to get involved in the divorce between friends. Especially when they’ve both been very stupid with finances and the main problem is how to sort out their finances.

I don’t know why you’re asking for any legal mind to spend their time going over this when it’s not going to do you any good to get involved.

I think it is likely they will get 50% as although they have only been married for two years they have been together for longer. But B will be expected to maximise their income. Their age will also be taken into consideration. The main issue will be can both of their housing needs be met post separation. The issue of the deposit being deducted will depend on how things were done at the time.

But it is all speculation & whether they can negotiate or whether the judge has to decide.

Thanks @Comefromaway - very useful. I was just looking to see if anyone with experience was like “hell no, B is super unlikely to get anything” or “marriage is marriage so 50/50 is not unlikely”.

yes, B has started working post separation. They are both early 40’s.

A can obviously afford the mortgage although I doubt he would be able to “buy B out” if ordered to give them half. So not sure how their housing needs will be considered? B could not buy a place on their own traditionally but shared ownership would be a suitable option so they’re hoping for enough to pay the solicitors fees and have a deposit for that…

What homemaking did B do other than not work and look after the dog?

Hmmm, 6 years of zero employment which is 50% of their entire relationship and 100% of their marriage. House was paid by A parents deposit plus A.

I would be shocked if A was due 50% but i am happy to be put right.

@Tessasanderson quite! These are my thoughts exactly. But I have zero legal expertise. B was told by a solicitor that negotiations would start at 50/50 but I’m worried they’ve misunderstood what is meant by that…

tbh if you don’t have kids, I’m not sure what homemaking there is to do! Just normal housework I guess?

in fairness, there were long periods of time (months/years) when A didn’t work (due to very poor mental health) and B was the sole breadwinner. So I guess that’s just how their relationship worked.

Both parties will have to make a full financial declaration which will include getting a MIP and working out what each can afford to rent/buy based on their current income and equity.

I'm no lawyer but have just recently assisted a family member negotiate paperwork and accompanied them to court One party didn't work for most of the duration of the marriage. The court will take into account that person B didn't work but it might go in their favour if they can demonstrate the reason they didn't work was because of Person A. A court will look at financial need, not who paid what & they will do the utmost to get a clean break.

However if the flat was bought prior to the marriage I'm not sure what the position there is.

in fairness, there were long periods of time (months/years) when A didn’t work (due to very poor mental health) and B was the sole breadwinner.

If B can show that they contributed to the upkeep of the flat during this time they have a strong case. It might not be 50:50, the deposit amount might come off it for example but I wouldn't be surprised if they get near enough that.

Best to leave it to B and the solicitor.

Did they live together for 10 years prior to marriage?

I think B needs to have a good think about what they reasonably want and how long they want this drawn out for. What are they gunning for? 50% of the full equity? 50% of only the increase in equity since they moved into the property? Something in the middle? A might be fully amenable to one of the latter two.

A solicitor can tell them that negotiations will begin at 50/50, which is the default initial position; but if it has to involve legal negotiations and courts, B has to bear in mind that they may be awarded less than 50%, and that whatever they’re awarded will also come with a side order of potentially hefty solicitor’s fees to pay. And if A cannot remortgage to give B the share they’re awarded, B has to consider that the property will need to be sold, that the eventual sale price may not be what they’re assuming the property is worth / would be valued at, that there will be costs associated with the sale, and that what they walk away with may be significantly less than they have in mind now, and that all this could take years.

As a friend, I’d steer clear of getting involved beyond being supportive, advising them to think about the above carefully, and remaining neutral. I’ve seen a friendship rupture over a legal issue (not divorce) where one party ended up blaming the other for (as they perceived it) encouraging them to pursue a legal angle which didn’t work out for them and cost them significantly.

Because of the length of the relationship (not just the marriage) then yes the starting point would be 50/50 and as well as the equity in the house minus the debt the court would take into account pensions. If A is a high earner even if no savings there is likely to be a pension pot at their ages.

If it were to go to court (which would be madness due to small amounts involved) it would be 50/50 or B may even get a bit more. Because it comes down to 'needs' and Bs needs are higher due to not working recently and being on a lower income. A good outcome for A would be 50/50 on equity after debt paid, and keeping their respective pensions seperate.

If B has a deed of trust in relation to the gifted deposit they will get that back then the rest potentially can be split. Your friend is unlikely to get a 50-50 split from the property. The clean break is far easier as they do not have children and both in a position to support themselves.

Agree that the amounts in play here don’t really justify an expensive court battle……

No legal reason from what you are saying why thete should be a diversion from 50/50. The years living together before marriage will count as married years, so its not a short marriage.

Who brought what in the marriage at this point is irrelevant unless one has protected their assets legally.

With what's left of the equity after debts repayment is too small to waste in solicitor fees. They can do it themselves or through mediation.

You haven't mentioned of he has any pension though. Also you say there are self employed. Do they own a business and if so, are there any business assets? Because that could come into the marriage assets.

Thanks all for replying - it seems that 50/50 is probable/possible then, so I’ll not start worrying B unnecessarily.

I realise there is also money in pensions (there are no business assets) and a few other things but really my question was just around whether 50/50 was likely or if B will walk away with nothing.

I'm a divorce solicitor. 50/50 is the starting point for all matrimonial assets (and this would be a matrimonial asset, being that it is the family home) and they go from there.

Did they cohabit for the full 12 years? This would be 'added on' to the two years legally married to determine the length of marriage (so this would be a long marriage).

I think in circumstances where the capital available is around £70k, taking into account debts, it is likely to be a 50/50 case as they're likely to have similar needs. I don't see the court taking A's additional contributions into account to the detriment of B's needs.

@stargirl27 thank you! Yes, they co-habited pretty much the entire 12 years (in rental accommodation). The flat was bought by A prior to the marriage (only a year or two).

Really interesting to understand your opinion/experience. I suppose if A can’t afford to give B half in cash, then he would just have to sell the flat in order to do so? (I have no idea whether A could or could not afford this - just looking at different scenarios).

yes, if A couldn’t afford to buy B out, they’d need to sell the property

other assets are also subject to sharing/could be offset (such as savings and pensions)