What is a fair divorce settlement?

[Allsfairinloveamdwar]

A close work colleague is divorcing her husband. They’ve been married about 15 years and have two kids, and from what she’s said it was her decision to split up because she stopped loving him. As far as I know nobody else is involved. He’s very much hands on with the kids and although she has residency he cares for them while she works (they both work different hours) so he sees them all the time, the older one stays overnight with him at weekends too. Anyway, he moved out at her request, has paid what she asked of him (over what the CSA calculated) and she is still in the marital home. They are at the point where they are trying to reach a settlement and she seems to want to bleed him dry! She wants to stay in the house until the youngest is 18, when they sell it at that point she says he’s only getting 20% of the profit, she’s also having half his pension (she has her own too) and it just sounds unfair to me. The way she talks about him it’s like she hates him having any fun. She didn’t want him but she moans if she hears he’s been out anywhere. I don’t say much to her as I don’t know her ex but she hasn’t suggested he’s treated her badly, just that she fell out of love with him. Is she being fair? I don’t have any close friends who’ve been divorced so I’ve no idea!

She has a legal right to stay in the home until the children are 18. It’s the children’s home. As for equity them that will depend on a number of things like contribution to the house. Sorry I can’t help on the rest.

Depends - if she sacrificed career progression/her own pension to support his career and raise the dc, then it could well be fair.

There's not enough information here to make any judgement one way or the other. A fair divorce settlement depends on so many different things. Just leave it to the solicitors.

And anyway, struggling to see how it's any of your business. I'd just make the right noises and let it wash over you, instead of getting invested in it.

"They are at the point where they are trying to reach a settlement "

So perhaps she is outlining her aspirations, and not what will actually happen?

"She has a legal right to stay in the home until the children are 18. It’s the children’s home."

It's a common practice but it isn't true that this is a legal right.

She has a legal right to stay in the home until the children are 18. It’s the children’s home.

No she doesn't. So many scenarios where this can't happen.
-The husband may want to get a mortgage on a smaller property and can't if his name is on the former marital home.
-The wife may not be able to afford the mortgage on her own. The husband may have to pay child maintenance but not the mortgage on a house he doesn't live in.

• both parents need a home where they can afford the mortgage. They may have to sell the marital home for a deposit.

Has she had legal advice? I don't think she'll get everything she asked for but there's not enough info in the OP.

Do they both have a solicitor?

Yes they both have a solicitor. They don't have a mortgage as the house is paid off but she said he wants to sell the house, for her to move into a cheaper three bed so he can afford a mortgage on a new house for himself. She seems to think this is totally unreasonable of him though. I'm not invested either, it's just that it's her favourite topic of conversation in the staff room at the moment and since we are a small team I can't really avoid her.

"Depends - if she sacrificed career progression/her own pension to support his career and raise the dc, then it could well be fair."

But half his pension seems excessive. Its stories like this that make men so reluctant to marry now.

Judges now go on needs.
The husband needs a home and if selling means they both get a home, that is what will happen, both pensions go into the pot, and all the assets, I bet they make her down size. And she will be so cross.

What she wants and gets will be 2 different things.

If you dont want to hear about it tell her she sounds like a grabby halfwit and should grow up.

Ffs she does not have a legal right to stay in the house. It's 50/50 starting point on everything - if she wants his pension he has a right to hers too.

Is she maximising her income? Full time hours? What ages are the kids? She may be able to claim a greater share old the assets if she is primary carer but if the house is paid for it is likely she will be required to sell and downsize - and shockingly get a mortgage like he will too - to distribute the assets fairly.

Unless she has made SIGNIFICANT career sacrifices she is being massively optimistic!

Even if she had made "significant" career sacrifices it would still be unfair to virtually impoverish the husband as some sort of compensation. Unless he's an abusive tyrant, she chose to have her kids. She chose to cut back her hours or take a break from work and be a SAHM because it was far more convenient than going back to work full time. And she was able to do do this because of his willingness to support her and put most of his pay towards supporting her and the kids.

I've never seen a divorced man reduced to living in a bedsit while his wife lives in the Spanish Riviera off the back of all the marital assets.

You and your agenda are tired and boring, Scott. If you don't want to get married then don't, if you don't want your wife to be a SAHM then don't make that joint decision, but stop trying to persuade everyone on this website that women's work isn't worth shit.