Divorce

[Mamagee33]

Im just about to start what I know will be a very messy divorce , I have sought advice from a solicitor who advised me that because I will have a child living with me my needs will be greater so estimated I will be entitled to 60% and my husband 40%. He said under no circumstances will he let me take 60% and said would rather see the house burnt down! He said he was told 50/50 and wants to see in writing where I was told otherwise. My solicitor said until we do a financial disclosure she’s cannot guarantee this. He earns roughly 4K more than me so not much difference in our salaries.
He suggested we try mediation, I have no idea what this involves other than they help you reach an agreement. Can someone please advise me whether a mediator will actually tell me what I’m legally entitled to financially otherwise I don’t see the point of it?

OP - given you H’s attitude - he’ll no doubt be pushing mediation to agree on 50/50....
While, it is true - in many cases where kids stay with one parent - the split shifts from 50/50.
He needs to see his own solicitor.

And - if there is a lot of assets I involved - court may be the only way to resolve it.

You need to be able to fight for you and your child.

Don’t discuss it with him,keep it through solicitor then he can’t play on your emotions

He has seen a solicitor and was told 50/50 but I think he’s bluffing as he’s a renowned liar. He also sold his classic car last week while I was away without my knowledge, told me he got 3k for it when it was insured for 23k. Refuses to show me any paperwork to prove this or give me new owners details. We were supposed to list this in our financial disclosure forms.
Still need to know if a mediator is qualified to let us know whose entitled to what.

is the 10% really worth the relationship with him being awful? you're going to have to co-parent without this person. Whose money is it? is 60/40 fair?

i only day that because when exp and i split i took 40% because although on paper i could take 50% the money had all come from his inheritance- our relationship is great now and the kids are really happy, they still see us as a team and we help each other with child care a lot.

i got enough money to start over but kept my dignity and knew i did the right thing by my morals.

Exactly he's lying , solicitor

No a mediator can't tell you who is entitled to what. They can give you general guidance I.e. step in if one party is taking the mick/in cloud cuckoo land, but they can't advise you. That's what a solicitor is for.
You could try mediation then consult your own sols on the suggestions before agreeing

My case is the reverse, I paid off our mortgage on our old house from my inheritance, we were mortgage free for 4 years before we brought a much bigger house so I have put in far more than he had. Plus he has a drink problem and spends hundreds a month on booze. That extra 10 per cent would be in excess of 150k so its a lot to throw away considering he’s benefitted from half my inheritance already, and he stands to inherit a lot more one day from his parents who are wealthy.

Thank you. I don’t see the point of the mediator then. I think husband is in favour of it as he has a way of manipulating me into seeing things his way. I just want what I’m legally entitled to. If I listened to him he would take the coat off my back if he had his way.

He's got the money, he's playing you, solicitor !

Mediators can be useful as impartial referees with expert knowledge (they're can often be solicitors themselves) where neither party wants to start forking out huge legal fees in a court battle but equally can't even start discussing a solution without the bad blood between them causing negotiations to break down.

Sounds an extreme example, but think of two countries at war: you don't want go high-cost and start bombarding each other with bombs but can't trust each other, so the mediator acts as a UN official to start "negotiations".

50:50 is usually taken as the baseline for any divorce. It's not automatically given a spouse can demand a greater share. It does, however, often skew that way depending on your individual circumstances.

I strongly believe that you should only get out of a divorce financially what you contribute to a marriage financially. Child support is a separate issue and is the right of the child. If you earn the same then the financial split should be 50/50. He can then make regular payments to support his child. I don't see why if you both earn the same you should be entitled to a larger split. Justify it.

She should get the bigger share cos she put more into the house. Also, will be the resident parent, therefore more likely to have to take time off work etc with the potential impact on earnings.

If she paid off the mortgage or not is irrelevant. It's a joint mortgage and a marital asset this joint property. Unless she had a legal document drawn up guaranteeing her a larger split then it has no bearing. As for expenses related to having the child more.....that's what child support is for and is separate from the joint martial property. You cannot make a legal agreement based upon 'maybes' or likelihoods. If after financial disclosure they have roughly the same earnings potential, same assets etc then 50/50 is fair.

My solicitor made it clear the starting point was 50/50. We cpuld argue around that till we were blue in the face - and did - but ultimately that was how it ended up. The other argument was over pensions. The house got sold as neither of us could afford to buy the other out. I have dc full time but this was not relevant as he still needed somewhere large enough to accommodate on his weekends, so not as if I needed more space.

The car was also a marital asset but he got shot of that without me seeing a penny of it. He’s probably sitting on 20k now. Oh well he can use that to pay his court fees now.

You will have to go to mediation before court or at least get a sign off.

A mediator is typically a former family law solicitor.
No solicitor can say what you will end up with in court as it's judge dependant and the law refers to needs..however in recent years higher courts have established a 50:50 principle and there would have to be a good reason to move away from it.

I was like you owning a mortgage free house, through my own hard work, prior to meeting Ex..I even had a deed which Ex had signed but in a long marriage it makes no difference.

If you can house yourself with 50:50 then that will be deemed as sufficient.
Sadly with the car, it depends..if the assets are considerable then a judge may view it as immaterial.

Your ex sounds hellbent on 50%, if he gets a supportive solicitor and barrister then it will get nasty and expensive but might not benefit you.
Unfortunately women are usually financially worse off after divorce which is hard to swallow but generally we are happier. It's a myth that women take men to the cleaners.

Do I regret court? I had no option as Ex's proposal was so low but it is a horrendous process and only the high conflict individuals thrive.Judges make strange decisions..often said on here "depends on what they had for breakfast and their mood".
Court is a risk as you are essentially handing over your finances to a Judge who can just wipe out your 150k in 5 mins...He or she decides what you can live on..plus you pay solicitors & barristers at least 25k for the privilege.
Once in the court system you rely on someone else to make decisions on your finances.

I would try mediation first, speak to the mediator and make sure you are happy. Mediation failed in my case but Ex chose a mediator who is known for poor control and she let Ex get aggressive, which should not have happened. I only found out afterwards.. I had naively thought Ex would be fair.