Advice needed - splitting assets through divorce 50/50 0r 60/40? So confused please help.

[Upsadaisygoonpunkmakemyday]

Have split from h, he refuses to move out to ensure he gets his fair share from the house sale. He's waiting for the house to get a buyer so he can quit his job to become a student.
Children will be staying with me and as the house will be sold I need to find them and me somewhere else to live.

I am being bombarded with advice that is well meaning but leaving me very confused and unsure what to do. I have friends that are saying a 50 50 split and anything else isn't fair and other friends that are telling me to go for the house or at least a 60 40 split. i feel either is a no win as someone will get hurt.
Since I have the kids should I go for 60% of the assets or do I leave it at a 50% each split?

The assets are house and car....they really won't bring a great deal. I feel as I have the kids I should get the larger share but he is adamant he wants 50 50.
Hope this makes sense my head is all over.

bumpity bump

see a solicitor first thing monday , you will get advise that is appropriate to your situation , rather than confusing advice

I have seen one last week and they said what I had rights to if I chose which pretty much would be the house and if sold a large portion of the money back from that.

A couple of friends think this is a really bad idea as it will damage any chance of keeping things amicable in the long run.

Then I have friends who don't see any dilemma and that I should go for as much as I have a right to as I have the children.

I'm going back to the solicitor Monday to draw up an informal agreement in hope that he will be reassured that if he moves out he will still get his fair share. I just don't know whether to state 50 50 or 60 40 split.

is there any chance of things being amicable ? if so, then maybe 50 - 50 is the way to go......? have you had any mediation?

When we separated I received 60%. We did this through mediation where they put the interests of the children first. The children lived with me and as I was working part time to look after the kids we both felt that the split was fair. My ex didn't want the children in full time care and knew on his salary he could get a mortgage on the 40% equality that he received. I strongly recommend going down the mediation route - through child services - I can't reember the name exactly. They don't take sides, they realy make you re-evaluate what is the best for the children and cost a lot lot less than lawyers. I find lawyers want you to think of all the 'bad' things about your ex so you can get more money and it was for me a destructive way to deal with something that is already so painful.

Good luck.

Thank you....I've suggested mediation but he was having none of it last week. I think I will suggest it again though. I'm off to look up child services and mediation.

look you have children to look out for

your h should be looking out for those children too

you have a requirement between you to house and feed and look after those children

of course 50:50 isn't an equitable split .. of course it isn't ... it simply doesn't stack up for the children who need to be housed

ignore your friends .. instruct your solicitor to get the best deal out of the split possible for the children

how dare they put the responsibility for an amicable split in terms of monetary and say if you take more than 50% its inequitable

that makes me want to spit

it is amicable for you both to bend over backwards to limit the fall-out for the children who are after all the most innocent parties in their parents split

I think you can get legal aid for a solicitor if you agree to attend mediation sessions in advance of the settlement. Not mediation towards your marriage, but to discuss an amicable division of assets.

Most arrangements take into account the fact that you will need to hosue the children and also possibly the fact that your earning power might be affected by parenthood, so your chances of being able to first get and then pay a mortgage are reduced. Will you be able to buy a house on 50% of the assets? if he plans to study, will he pay child maintenance?

I wonder if the friends urging 50/50 have children? Anyway, this is a private matter between you, you ex-to-be and your legal and financial advisors.

My ex was also against Mediation at first - as I said he was concerned that they would take sides. But we both agree it was the best thing we did and like Twiglett said - it focuses on what is important - the children. It completely makes you stop thinking of it as a I get / you get situation and at the end in my experience couples have better 'ex' relationship for it.

Your solicitor should be able to set up mediation for you.

Are you going to split your future earnings earn 50/50? Is your ability to earn compromised by being a single parent to your children? The notion that fairness can only be achieved by a 50/50 split is nonsense. if you are equal earners and have equal needs then 50/50 makes sense. You don't have to sell until you get a settlement you know. He can't make you sell the house at all. By refusing mediation it sounds to me as if things are already less than entirely amicable anyway.

Ask your solicitor about mediation. If it works out, it really cuts the costs, so solicitors reccomend you try this option.

I have recently been through all this, and the mediator we saw was very fair & didn't take sides at all. My ex husband agreed to a 70/30 split of the equity from our house sale, which my solicitor was happy with.

Normally you will be looking at more than 50% of the equity because you have the children.

30/70 isn't unusual, I think, if one partner has the children and also a lower earning potential.

He sounds very self-interested.

My husband was pretty anti mediation at first as well, but he was very impressed with the second mediator we saw, and was more than happy to go along with everything he reccomended.

My solicitor never looked at a 50/50 split, the lowest he would consider was 60/40, but he was happier with the 70/30 that H agreed to in the end.

50/50 split is usually only equitable and considered by the courts if it is a high-asset-value divorce (ie within those figures both parties can comfortably house themselves and any children in two establishments).

If we aren't talking about a high value case,then the courts will look at it from the point of view of suitably housing the children first, then both parties second (which may include space for the children in both establishments, if there is to be significant contact with the non-resident spouse). In these cases it isn't at all unusual for the resident spouse (usually mother) to end up with 70% or more of the assets because basically they are needed for the purposes of looking after the children

Longwinded way of saying that you really need to sit down with a spreadsheet of income and expenses and calculator and work out what works, and not get too hung up on %s. THe courts will insist that you at least consider mediation (although they can't force him to do it) - which is almost always better in the long run in terms of maintaining a decent relationship between parents and reducing stress on children. Best of luck

Thank you all - I'm going to see about mediation and encouraging h to go.

Blu - he is very self interested thats main reason were splitting so I don't know why I feel so surprised that he's still putting his own needs before children's

and yes friends who suggest 50 50 are childless....I've felt so guilty after converstaions with them.

Thank you all...my back bone feels a bit stronger now to stand up to him regards to this.
It's a really difficult situation as he's making life difficult living under the same roof and I know he's hurting but I'm not made of stone either. It's very oppressive. I'm also going to see if I can get him out of the house though still sell it....I feel awful for this but he has somewhere to go and we don't.

make sure you tell him that the district judge who he appears before at a very early stage in the whole proceedings will tell him that he expects him to consider mediation, and if he doesn't agree to go will ask him why and strongly recommend him to reconsider.

his solicitor will confirm this to him

difficult to come up with valid arguments for NOT trying mediation, really

Good luck with it all. It's hard having to live together after deciding to separate isn't it? I ended up doing this for 11 months because my H refused to move out until we completed our house sale.

Mediation is far better than fighting it out in court, and it is loads cheaper too! Your H would be silly not to at least give it a go.

Ignore your childless friends. I had loads of stick from my own family, but at the end of the day, the needs of your children come first!

upsadaisy - sounds like you're more decidedon what to do now but fwiw, please ignore your childless friends - you can't know the financial,emotional and time implications af having children if you don't have them.

Personally - I think if possible you should have enough money from the split to fund a house with enough bedrooms in a reasonable area and he can have enough for a 1/2 bed flat - or deposits that would secure that for you. I think if that isn't possible you should have more because the children's security is paramount here and they'll be with you. Children come first, end of.

LOL - how did I guess the 50/50 advisors were childless?!

Be clear that mediation is not relationship counselling, but is away to get a starting point ofr sorting out assets - actually, if you get a solicitor - which you need to do - he will have to get one, and then his solicitor can be the one to strongly suggest mediation, in response to a leter form your solicitor suggesting mediation!.

IMO the fact that he is so self-centred makes it even more important that you get a proper setlement agreed between lawyers. He won't do it out of care for his children, by the sounds of it!

Good luck!

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, but here's my tuppence worth (I'm a divorce lawyer).

The only way that 50/50 is ever appropriate is where:

a. Both parties on identical incomes

AND

b. No kids, or kids to share residence 50/50.

Otherwise, assuming your income is lower than your husbands and the kids will spend more of their time with you, the split should be weighted much more heavily in your favour because

a. You need to rehouse you and the kids, he only needs one bedroom for him & POSS. more for contact visits, but not at the expense of the main home.

b. If your income is less than his, so is your mortgage capacity.

You should get, in addition to a capital share as above, child maintenance a20% of his net for 2 kids, 25% for 3 or more, plus spousal maintenance to you, plus a pension share.

You're not being unreasonable to get what is after all just a fair share.

MySIL has just got a divorce after 10 years of marriage (one child) she never really worked much - as a nanny for a while then gave up working through illness issues, and never worked from teh second she got pg.

She got IIRC an amount equivilent to the FULL equity of the house (eg mortgage was £185, house worth £300, she got £115) He managed to do this WITHOUT selling the house, and he lives in a 4 bed family home. She also got maintenence of approx 15%.

She has little or no earning potential having never had a career - he is an actury and earns £50K+, and £115K locally doesn't pay for more then a one bed flat or 2 bed house in a nasty area. So atm she is living in the granny flat at her parents, trying to find work for 16 hrs a week to get additional tax credits.

50/50 split, my arse, she may have a huge lump sum in the bank, but cannot get a mortgage with no credit history, 16hrs a week wont exactly help that and he is still living in a fancy house with everything. She is lucky in that she has found work as a swimming teacher and this may build up anough to get a £40K mortgage and then be able to buy a litlle 2 up 2 down terrace nearby. She has to stay near as it is the only way to get free childcare

IMHO unless he needs ANY equity in the house - in that he cannot get a mortgage without it, you should get the full amount.