right. legal mners help pls. current divorce law - how do divisions of assets usually go?

[missmrsms]

regular mner etc blah

dp and i are not married.
we want to be.
dp is under the impression that divorce law says that if i ran off a week after we were married (er, im not going to but hes working with worst case scenario here) then i would be able to take not just half, but most of everything hes worked his whole life for. he is close to retirement age (well, close-ish) and does not want to risk ending up poor and old and alone.
hes been married before and he thought that was forever too... i can see his point tbh. if getting married exposed me to such a risk im not sure id be leaping about to do it either. i brought nothing, in financial terms, to the relationship. i brought my womb and he says hed get married tomorrow if he thought half was the expected outcome as his children are the most important thing in his life... along with me, obv.

so. is he right? do women these days get most of the assets/money? would i be made to boot him out the house and leave him penniless? or is it more how i would expect; that the woman gets way less than half in 99% of cases.

i wouldnt even want 'half'. theres plenty enough to provide me and the children with a house and living allowance. what more would i want of what wasnt mine to begin with? (while we're together, we share everything, but id consider his money his if we separated - surely thats normal?)

i am offline after 9pm, so pls dont think im being rude/ungrateful for responses. this is actually incredibly important to me. tia.

Unfortunately there's no simple answer to your question save that "it all depends". To get a rough idea you'd need to say:

1. how many children are there and are they his (or treated as his even if from a previous relationship)?
2. What age are they?
3. How long have you been together (in the sense of cohabiting or similar, not just dating)

The rough answer is that if there are children then they're the first priority in any break up so housing them and providing for them is the most important thing. For a lot of people that takes up most of the money.

If there are no children/there's plenty left then the starting point is that you split the money generated in the marriage equally and keep anything you came in with (esp if it's a relatively short marriage, say under 10 yrs).

You could enter a pre-nup but it's not binding and if there are children then it's not really worth the paper its written on.

Of course the above is a brief summary of what the courts would be likely to do and therefore what a lawyer would be pushing to negotiate in any settlement. No-one will force you to take all that you could get (provided that the children are OK)...

Sorry that's not especially helpful but it's very difficult to say without knowing hte circumstances.

thanks catz, your answer is appreciated.

1, there are 3 children, all his and also a child from his prev marriage who doesnt live with us.
2, our 3 are all under 5. his first is 8 (dont think thats relevant but just in case)
3, living together since about mid 2002.

he says a prenup is liable to piss a judge off, so worse than pointless.

Thanks for the reply - I should have also asked whether you are a SAHM/earn enough to support yourself?

ah yes, sorry for lack of detail

yes i am a sahm. no, i dont earn anything atm. im not unemployable... would obv work if we were separated i think.

doh
[plonker]

ahem

yes i am a sahm. and no i dont earn anything atm. i stopped working when i got pg first time. the dc are now 4, 3 and 2.

Hi Missmrsms (not sure why nappiesgalore was hijacking your thread then )

There's no simple formula so not easy to give you a direct answer (esp as it is hypothetical) but I'm sorry to say that your DP is right that if could potentially be expensive and an SAHM with 3 children under 5 is about as expensive as it gets! BUT (and this is important) the expense is largely about providing for the children not you. A few points:

1. Most people don't have their finances decided directly by the court. Instead they come to an agreement together/with a mediator/through lawyers which the court then checks to make sure it's not outrageous and then rubber stamps. I.e. no-one would force you to take something you didn't want provided that the kids were OK. I guess that's not that helpful as I suppose he wants to know what the worst case is if your relationship goes very sour.

1. If you were to go to court it would probably work out roughly as follows. I will assume that the children would live with you only as this is what usually happens with a SAHM and also is the most expensive for him so 'worst case'. If the children were still youngish it would probably be decided as follows:

i. First priority is to house the children. This inevitably would mean housing you too. This doesn't necessarily mean that you'd get all the equity in the house. The court could order that you get to live there till the children leave home then it's sold and the equity split. Alternatively, if you have a large matrimonial home they might want it sold and two smaller homes bought so you have one each.

ii. Next priority, maintenance for the children.

iii. Next, meet the basic needs of both of you (including housing him). Generally a SAHM would get maintenance to stay at home whilst the children are still small but would be expected to retrain and do part-time work once the children are at school then more as they get older (so maintenance would diminish/end).

iv. If there is anything left then the court would divide the rest taking the rough starting point that anything acquired or earned during the marriage would be split 50:50 - in your case this probably would count from 2002 when you lived 'as if married'. Anything before that would tend to be kept by the person who brought it in.

Essentially that means that if your DP is wealthy and can easily provide for i-iii then he'd probably keep more than 50% but if you get stuck at i or ii then he would be shelling out a large proportion of his money.

BUT

1. Even if you split now then it could be expensive for him. He would STILL have to maintain the children (which I presume he would want to do) and the law is moving towards giving the courts quite extensive powers to order financial support where there are children. Look up schedule 1 of the Children Act and what the courts have been doing with that (including ordering the home to be transferred). Also, there are proposals to have a divorce like regime for cohabitants with children (and some others) who split up. Essentially, if you are a relatively wealthy cohabitant with children I think you'd be foolish to assume that you're assets are safe....

That's very long and not that specific. I hope it's helpful.

that nappies eh? what a card... [arf]

first of all; thank you SO much for your time and expertise. i really appreciate it.

hmmmmm... on the whole i think thats fairly positive. from my pov that is (and lets face it; if im happy, the whole house gets to be happy )

can i just ask one more question; if i were to start earning quite soon - and potentially be earning more - possibly enough to support self - before any split, how would that change things, if at all? married or not i mean?

i would assume that it would simply mean less in the way of support for me, but same as sahm w rgds to home and support for dc. is that right?

Catz, areyou sure you'd keep anything you came in with? Really? I got the impression if H and I split I'd have to sell my house and buy him one.

Hi Missmrsms,

Again 'it all depends' (sorry, it's difficult to be precise, it's all very discretionary so even if it went to court it would depend on the judge) but generally you're right. Earning yourself would mean that there'd be less/no support needed for you but the first priority would still be housing the children (and therefore the person looking after them) and supporting the children.

I think it's important to distinguish between who gets to live in the home and who owns it. If you're with the children then giving you and them the right to live in the home is the most imortant thing. If you were earning it might affect the way that the ownership of the home worked out. E.g. if you were earning in a stable job you might be expected to get a small mortgage to release some capital for your partner to buy a home. Hope that helps and sorry to be a bit vague.

If you want a more personal answer it might be an idea for you both to have a quick chat (separately so you can ask any questions that sound disloyal!) with a lawyer to get the financial pros and cons of marrying.

2sugars. You may well have to sell the house and buy him one. There's no fixed rules but generally the courts priorities are in the following order (1) children's needs (2) adults needs (3) splitting the remainder in a 'fair' way. Most people only have enough cash after a divorce to deal with (1) and maybe (2) so it depends how much money there is. If there is a surplus after dealing with everyones needs THEN the fact that you brought a lot more to the marriage in terms of money would be relevant (but not earlier).

thank you catz, you have been extremely helpful.

that missmissy bird says thanks too