Is it always fair to split assets equally?

[spanthepopular]

Been married for 20+ years, three grown up dc. For various reasons I am starting to think we would be better off apart...no other people are involved, I just that we would both be happier as we have different approaches to life (mainly connected to social life, he prefers to be alone or just spend time with me, I like to spend time with wider family and friends).
I've spent years trying to make him more sociable. Yes I can go to parties etc on my own, but it gets pretty wearing to have to spend the evening explaining why he isn't with me. I've realised that he is who he is and it's not fair for me to try and change him, although he has definitely become more antisocial with age.
Anyway, that's the background, now to address the question. He has always been the high earner, I have been a SAHM when dc were little and worked part time around school/activities, plus done all the domestic stuff. He has paid most of the bills and has built up good savings/investments. Would it be fair to have half of the sale of the house? (It's just an a average house) Anything more? Or since I'm the instigator should I walk away with much less?

The starting point for divorce is 50/50 of ALL assets - house , pension, savings.

Are you saying you feel as if you don't deserve that ?

Well it's him that's saved the money out of his income, he has a stressful job. I always assumed that it would be 50/50 but I'm starting to doubt myself even though I've looked after him, the house and dc.

You really think your contribution has been so meaningless?

Actually it would be more likely to go slightly more in your favour rather than the other way round as your contributions enabled him to do and his earning power is far higher than yours

But surely talking to him is the first step

I'm pretty sure he would rather stay together, that's what's making me doubt the whole 50/50 arrangement. His argument would be that although he doesn't want to do all the social things that I do, he would never stop me doing them so what's the issue? After so long it will be a huge upheaval and I guess I feel a bit guilty about that. It's like I'm making a decision to flip our whole life upside down.

Imagine you had worked all those years. How much would it have cost to pay for all that cooking, cleaning, childcare, organising?

I wouldn't just slink off with less than you're entitled to out of guilt. See a lawyer, see a counsellor!

Surely you see your marriage as a joint effort? Of course you deserve 50% of everything plus more so that your futures are more equal too. Stop being silly.

Honestly my PIL did this and it's been a disaster for both of them.

Split assets meant neither of them had quite enough for somewhere nice to live. Likewise pensions- no more holidays.

Mil found that weirdly she was invited out less when she was single that when married, even though fil never went.
Both children lived a way away and as fil took the divorce very badly they tried to split their visiting time equally which upset mil who felt that she deserved more time as the children had been her job.
Christmas was a bloody nightmare.

I know this is all logistical but they key thing is neither were unhappy as such. Mil just thought she'd be happier and wasn't but by then it was too late.

You enabled him to have both family and career. Your career & earning potential has been limited by being a sahm, so your settlement should reflect that.

I'd say you'll get more because your career has suffered and his earning ability is higher plus your ability to build a pension has suffered. These things get taken into account in a divorce.

To be fair I've never had a career, we got married young ish and had dc early on. That's not to say I didn't have the potential for one though!

Exactly. You had DCs young and caring duties took over. If you hadn't have done this it would have been very different.

Exactly which is why it would be 50/50

Normally in this situation you would be entitled to more than half.

As a general statement no I don’t agree that 50/50 is fair most of the time. If there is a child with SEN who can never be fully independent that should be taken into account. If DC will have one main home then that parents career prospects are generally reduced plus costs are higher and that should be taken into account.
And SAHM for several years also should be entitled to more. A decision to have one parent stay at home is a joint one for the benefit of the whole family and should never be considered to be worth less than monetary contributions by the other parent.
Look at the future. If you split assets evenly where would you both be in 10 years time? Not even I bet because the past years of building his career are a huge benefit to him and you don’t have that. Don’t sell yourself short. You have made a big contribution to a comfortable life for him for the past 20 years. You both deserve a similar standard of living moving forward

I see your point OP however, the law is pretty clear in your favour.