Divorced peoples opinions

[notreadyfortheheat]

So I feel I'll get a lot of backlash for this post but, putting my big girl pants on.

I have noticed soooo many times in MN other users thinking your a fool for having children out of wedlock. Insisting if the person out of wedlock wants ANY rights (specifically access to assets) they hurry up and tie the knot! And they are a fool and vulnerable not to.

It always seems a very heated debate, with lots of users pointing out they would never have children without marriage as it leaves them vulnerable, and they need the legal backing of a marriage to feel secure.

My question is, those of you who have sadly (or maybe happily) divorced, do you feel you'v financially come of well because you had the protection of marriage? If you got married mostly for the legal protection aspect of it, was it worth it?

Just to points out this isn't to say "marriage makes no difference legally" it obviously does, but maybe to say "don't bank on being set for life, having a fair split of things and being looked after" just because you were married to the father of your children. (Uk based but welcome all responses)

I’m divorced and assets were split equally as we had no children. I met someone else and we have a DS but we live together but not married. It wasnt a priority for me initially (but is now & he doesnt want to marry but that’s another story). I’d like to marry for the commitment and because we have a child.

Financially though, I am not sure what benefit it would be for me. We jointly own our home and I have a job. He put more equity into the house than me, so I would gain in the event of a 50/50 split on sale. My friend often says I am not protected but I dont know why? My DP doesnt have much of a pension but I have a work pension I’ve been paying into for 25 years. I had my own house before I met DP and was financially independent.

I think the real worry for women who are not married or if they are, is if they are the stay at home parent. Whilst that is lovely to enjoy your chilldren in this way it makes them so vulnerable financially. I have always worked (4 days a week) and have a good salary but friends of mine who stayed out of job market now have limited finances and frankly financial difficulties and limited options for good jobs following divorce.

So my point is, its the staying financially independent that is crucial for women in their lives.

So many times we see on here women unhappy in relationships but have no job so they cant leave.

I have become a SAHM in the last 3 years. Before that I was slowly scaling back. H is a high earner. If we were married I would be completely dependent on his goodwill with the exception of child support. We own a house but he has other assets gained in our marriage. I will need some form of compensation for that.

I think it makes a difference when there are children involved and one party is significantly weaker financially.

I did! It meant I got a share of the house we bought together, and my equity in it too. As legally it's what I was owed.

My friend who split with her fiancé, who also has a joint house, had a long, protracted, expensive, quite painful legal battle to get her share. And in the end didn't get all of it anyway.

Another friend who is looking to split from her partner has just realised she will have to move out of their shared flat and has nowhere to go but her mums. He owns it, pays the mortgage. She contributed to bills but won't get that back and has been living with him for 8 years. Had a false sense of security that the flat was a joint asset. But without marriage, she was just a flatmate with no rights.

We've all agreed owning property together without being married is a risky move.

Also, sometimes the decision to become a SAHM is not always about wanting to spend the extra time with the children. Sometimes their needs mean you need to stop work or cut back your hours.

Nope. My divorce is costing me a fortune, because my ex is a dick, and while I will be left with a bit to buy my own place, the money that I've spent so far on lawyers fees, I could have saved and bought my own house anyway. I'll never get married again.

@sosickofthisshit Wouldn't you have had to spend as much on legal fees to get your share of equity/sales or the money you put into the house if you weren't married?

Marriage is absolutely the way to go if you are the financially weaker. If you are better off financially you may wish to avoid marriage in favour of living together. I was married, I paid the mortgage and all the bills, have a good pension, good job. He cheated, and I divorced him. I guess I had thought being married would mean decent rights on both sides. It didn’t. He was entitled to half my pension when he had contributed nothing, and large chunks of other monies. Never again..

And don’t get me started on lawyers fees..

Without a shadow of a doubt

Sahm

Financially marriage was a disaster for me!!

I went into it the wealthier party. Before marriage I was able to secure the equity. Within the marriage DH was able to very deliberately "magic" it out, very much helped by the fact we were married. I was very lucky i escaped with the money i did. i was very nearly landed with his extensive credit card debt that was in his name. He tried to have it labelled as family debt.

I know other women in the same situation. Thankfully so does DD. There's no way I'd recommend marriage to DD and she's really seen the unpleasant underbelly.

There are better ways to secure your finances without marriage.

@JurassicParkAha Nope, because the majority of the fees I've paid are because of him being obstructive and difficult about other financial issues, that really have no bearing on the overall settlement. If it was just the house, which is the only asset we have really, it would have been done and dusted a long time ago, and I would have walked away with more money.

I’ve been married twice and divorced twice. One DS from 2nd marriage.

I lost out financially with both marriages/divorces - to the tune of several tens of thousands. I was the higher earner both times, and inheritance/savings meant that the funds for house deposits came entirely from me.

I was a slow learner, but I will never marry again as it makes no financial sense for me.

I think the crucial point is about the weaker party financially. It's just that it tends to be the woman.

In my case, as I was the only earner, I lost thousands on divorce that I would not have done had we not been married. You also have all the formalities of the actual divorce, leaving aside the finances. My ex would not participate in any of the court action so even the decree absolute cost thousands, and the whole thing has taken over 3 years.

You can replicate the protection that marriage gives, but you have to actively take steps to do so.

@Purplecatshopaholic

Marriage is absolutely the way to go if you are the financially weaker. If you are better off financially you may wish to avoid marriage in favour of living together. I was married, I paid the mortgage and all the bills, have a good pension, good job. He cheated, and I divorced him. I guess I had thought being married would mean decent rights on both sides. It didn’t. He was entitled to half my pension when he had contributed nothing, and large chunks of other monies. Never again..

This. With bells on. I'm going to be worse off. Never never again

I'm divorced and , as I was financially better off than exh he came out of it a lot better than I did. I paid the mortgage and bills on the house, the joint credit card had my name on it first and I put more money into the joint account. He walked away with half the house, he'd maxed out the card buying stuff for himself (which I was liable for half of), and half of the joint account. I will never marry or have a "joint" anything money related again...I learned the hard way.

@sosickofthisshit Eek! I didn't think of that aspect so good to consider. I'm sorry, dickhead ex-es can get in the bin.

Thanks everyone for your input!

I guess it has been on my mind as a close friend is getting a divorce. They own a home together (in both names) and have two children. He is the high earner and she worked only about 16 hours a week on a low income job. She's having a horrid time. It's been ongoing already nearly a year and they seem no further forward. In the mean time she's had to find a full time job to help with legal costs, while he is more than comfortable.
I just wonder if they hadn't have been married, would she not be the same off. As her house is in joint name regardless of marriage and she wouldn't have these crippling legal costs.

I divorced twice without children and in both cases our finances were not merged so it didn’t make any difference. When I had DC I was widowed and I was really really glad of the state widow’s pension. I would have got nothing had we not been married.

Also know someone who was widowed with children before the divorce was finalised and was much better of because of it, although her DH was not working or living with them.

I’m unclear whether the latest position treats unmarried parents in the same way - government have certainly fought it.

@WitsEnding sorry to hear that you lost your partner. Thank you for sharing. This is such a valid point I hadn't thought of.

It depends on assets and who is financially stronger, I think. And also if the other party wants to be a dickhead or not.

I'm divorced, we agreed not to touch each other's pensions etc and he gave me half of what the house is worth because it was only him on the mortgage.

I don't know if I'll marry DP, we won't have kids together but each have our own from previous relationships, and we earn pretty much the same (I'm the higher earner but really not by much). If we buy a house then it will be joint names... the vulnerability factor isn't there from my POV.

If I was a sahp living in a house my partner owned and had no savings... and he decided he'd had enough... well, I'd be pretty fucked wouldn't I. There's definitely pros to it if you're in certain situations, and cons in others.

I was much better off for being married. Day to day we had equal money and spending, but he had a better paid job and a huge pension. I ended up with more house to compensate.

Now 2nd DH has less money and assets. One of the reasons I married him was to protect him. If we do divorce I won't shaft him.

Marriage is absolutely the way to go if you are the financially weaker.

Yep!
If you don't earn (for whatever reason) & have no assets get married. If you are financially independent &/or are the wealthier partner think carefully about marrying.

My aunt divorced and did very well. She was a SAHM to high earner, got a "package" of about 1m. This was 20 yrs ago, she has a partner but will never marry him.

It depends on who is the weaker partner financially. In your example, OP, don't forget the pensions, which can be worth more than the house and presumably she has little pension of her own.
There is a certain gender inequality showing here, as to some extent the bitterness of some of the women here losing their hard won assets on divorce reflects how some men have felt in the past. Overall I'm sure patriarchy tends to mean that more women are justified in their bitterness, but still.

Óne good reason to get married is, if your partner dies, you are entitled to nothing if you are not married, even if you have children together.
I know someone whose partner died suddenly in his 50s and everything went to his family. She had to sell her home and move into a small flat.
If you don't marry, you both need to make wills to ensure your partner gets your assets.