Legals people can I ask a question please re divorce

[Advicewithoutfortune]

I have a solicitor and I don't know what to expect except I seem to be coming off worse than people around me getting divorced.

He earned more than me ,my work fit around the children etc and I became more ill as marriage went on. I still work but it's part time.
He took our two DC as well one who just turned 18 and one who turns 18 in Dec.

I've been offered nothing except a % of house equity. Nothing else he earns over 100 grand and has planned this for a long time .

My question is that when I saw the solicitors barrister they seemed united that this was all I can get.
I can't understand why.

Id like to get a second option but I'm terfied of costs .
Would a barrister have a quick chat to tell me if it's worth pursuing in court ?
Or would a phone call be charged ?

If he’s gambled it all away, that’s maybe why you’re getting what you’re getting. Solicitors are so bloody expensive, please don’t use loads of money fighting this.

I feel that you’re getting moral and emotional fairness mixed up with what legally is possible and advisable. It’s all shit, you thought you’d be together forever and that your investment into the relationship was caring for the children. Unfortunately the law is looking at it as kids are adults now, you’ve got your equity, get a job or claim benefits. If we were your friends sitting having coffee, we would no doubt be appalled for you and calling him a bastard for doing this to you. Right now we’re trying to help you understand your position and to get through it mentally and get your head around it.

When people on here say marriage protects you, that’s because when you’re married you then get said equity, pensions etc but the broader benefit usually applies to people with young children. Marriage helps prevent you from getting turfed out on your ear with little kids in tow. You have to understand while, as much as we all understand you want space for your grown up kids to stay over, legally there’s no ‘reason’ as they have their rooms there and are on the way to independence. To have no overview of the finances and to not work or claim PIP etc at all anyone on here would have always said you’re still very vulnerable.

Stop focusing on feelings, I know it’s all really painful, but they are irrelevant right now. It’s about what you can convince the legal system to consider based on law. You’d need some kind of probable cause and/or a forensic accountant to start digging into his finances. Ie. You’d need to be able to say ‘he’s hiding a pension from X because I remember him paying into that when he worked for Y from 2015-2020’ because having a feeling about it and assuming it’s been frittered away are not solid evidence.

How severe are your 18 year old’s SEN in terms of long term care? Does he get DLA, have a diagnosis etc? Because only then would he potentially be considered as they do a child in terms of shared care. Otherwise, he’s voted with his feet and gone to dad’s place, from mid teens they consider where the child wants to go and pretty much unless there’s massive issues abuse etc they let them give their input. Do you get PIP and/or ESA for your condition? More forms if you haven’t got these already, but you need to strengthen yourself financially going forward.

Unless we get a rough idea of details nobody will be able to give better advice. If your equity gets you a 1 bed and him a 3 bed with a mortgage, that is fair under the law. When me and my EXH split, he wanted a bigger place for when the kids visit, which he could not say when would be and refused to be locked into childcare agreements, they were primary age. Everyone said absolutely not, mum (me) needs a full sized home to house them, dad will have to make do as he’s not the primary parent.

I wondered this too.
I do think it's relevant. Op has already said the equity split is in her favour .So if she's getting 70-80 % of the fmh , that could be why his pension isn't being included. Op has also said he's lost money.
If he is in a position to use his equity and a mortgage to buy a 3 bed and op isn't, that doesn't necessarily mean the division of marital assets is unfair.
I think perhaps op had expectations that cant be achieved, with the assets available.

If you really do believe he's hiding assets then don't agree. But do you have actual tangible proof or reasonable suspicion of this - e.g., you know he had X account and that money is no longer illustrated in the financial disclosure forms? If so, your solicitor can make the enquiry on this directly and scrutinise the forms vs what you remember the finances being.

You usually have to provide supplementary evidence to back up the figures stated in Form E and his solicitor will have asked for this. It would be a serious issue if he intentionally lied on the financial forms, as the form (if I recall correctly) is a declaration of truth. Courts can get involved. Do you think he would really risk this?

Apologies if I’ve missed it but what % split of all assets have your solicitors suggested you might receive? This info is key for this discussion.

There is not enough information here to say whether the percentage of the equity in the house being offered is fair. However, in simple terms, the pot to be split between you consists of the equity in the house, your pension, his pension and any other assets.

The starting point is a 50/50 split of the assets including both pensions, but there are various factors that mean you may be entitled to more or less than 50%. Whilst the courts can order that you get part of his pension, they will normally give you a larger share of the equity in the house and keep his pension pot intact.

The courts can order spousal maintenance but they prefer a clean break. If spousal maintenance is justified, the courts will normally order that you get a larger share of the equity in the property instead of maintenance.

You will be entitled to child maintenance for any children under 16 that are living with you.

The courts will want to be sure that you have a roof over your head, but that doesn't necessarily mean a mortgage-free roof.

Your main problem appears to be that you think your ex is hiding assets. I'm afraid you won't get anywhere with this unless you have evidence. However, if you get evidence after the financial settlement has been finalised showing that he was hiding significant assets, you will be able to go back to court and ask them to adjust the financial settlement.

Your lawyers are far better placed than anyone on here to advise you as to whether the settlement on offer is fair. If you aren't happy with their advice, you can consult a different solicitor to see if they say something different.

You don't seem to fully understand the process of divorce and getting a financial order which makes me wonder what your solicitor has explained to you.

The two main factors that will be considered in terms of fairness are you needs and your income/income potential.

Your children are over 18 and although most parents consider they still have a duty to support their children after that age, legally, it's no longer deemed a requirement.

Is your husband already subject to a pension order as part of his previous divorce? Because if that's the case, your solicitor should have advised you that you can't request one now. A pension pot can only be subject to one order.

You need to consider your needs. Your children are adult, so it will likely be a one bed home. Your income needs to be considered. Would your ex agree that you can only work PT or would he challenge that your disability doesn't stop you from working PT?

What will come into it, after the above, is the lifestyle you've been used to during the marriage.

It sounds that to take the above circumstances I to consideration, he was advised to offer a bit more than 50% equity. What more do you think you should be entitled to?

If you think he is adding assets, the onus is on you to evidence it (and that can become very costly quickly), but if he is found to have deliberately hidden assets, he will be in contempt of the court and likely to receive some form of punishment as a result.