Some scary attitude in this thread.
For the women TJ yes. Courts and legal systems throughout Europe don't agree with the UK either. I married for the second time in France selecting from one of the 4 different standard contract (pre-nup) options, you can draw up any option you like. At the very least we should have the same.
My ex-wife didn't look after the kids for nothing, she had a "City of London" income at her disposal.
Yes but could she develop her own career?
and build up her own pension?
turnerguy but the unpaid work she did supported him in 20 years of his career - thats why all the assets are partly hers.
agreed, partly...
If he had had to pay for the childcare and the housework he would be a lot worse off.
also agreed.
So yes - her unpaid work has supported him in his paid work so
she is entitled to half the wealth built up over that time
not agreed - why half ?
So if someone like Bill Gates builds up a huge empire and earns sh1t loads of money because of all the groundwork that he has put in, and then marrys and has a child or two, when he divorces why should the wife be entitled to half of all the assets and all of his savings built up by his huge earning capability?
What exactly has she done to enable that huge earning capability, over and above child-care costs ?
If however they were both on an equal standing when they got together, and then she looked after the kids whilst helping him develop his career, then her 'share' does approach half, plus future maintenance possibly to compensate for his ability to earn more in the future compared to her, and a pension scaled to what she would have earnt in that period.
A blanket 50/50 default split is a pretty crude rule of thumb.
its 50 / 50 for the time they have been together. Why - because its the only fair way to do it. he is able to earn all that money because of what she does.
As nonk said - some very funny and very old fashioned attitudes on this thread. I like a partnership of equals. In a partnership of equals the assets built up during that partnership belong to both equally
In the Gates case you outline she would only be able to claim half the assets built up during the time they were married - not the stuff from before as of right
its 50 / 50 for the time they have been together. Why - because its the only fair way to do it. he is able to earn all that money because of what she does.As nonk said - some very funny and very old fashioned attitudes on this thread. I like a partnership of equals. In a partnership of equals the assets built up during that partnership belong to both equally
In the Gates case you outline she would only be able to claim half the assets built up during the time they were married - not the stuff from before as of right
Well that's funny, because you are wrong.
In a long marriage, in this country, it is a 50/50 split of total assets, pension, savings, etc - no consideration of anything built up before the marriage being siloed (although possibly pension provisions built up before the marriage can be argued to be safe as I think there was a case about it).
In a shorter marriage then there may be some consideration and in a < 5 year marriage you get out what you came in with I believe.
And in the Gates case she shouldn't also be entitled to half his income during the marriage either really, he still could have earned those sums minus a small amount on childcare if it really came down to it and she 'withdrew' labour.
If Melania wasn't there do you think Donald Trumps earnings would halve?
I sort of agree with both views and it sort of depends.he is able to earn all that money because of what she does.
For example if say Paul and linda Mccartney had divorced i think its hard to argue he only made money because she was there or that she contributed equally
in general i think it is pretty much the same as you but their ought to be a point where post divorce it is seen as a clean break from said arrangement
Its also worth noting you have to give a lot to someone you don't like, who now has your kids and controls your access, hence why many are not that keen on the 50/50 split.
In my case there was **** all to split
At one point she did ask for half my bikes and i asked for half her shoes in reply...all the left ones.
So, for some of those posting here, perhaps you should have pushed harder for your partners to work sooner after childbirth.
For some of the others who think it is unfair, firstly after 20 years it ain't your money, it is shared. This is not new, and you knew what you are getting into.
For those who know someone who lost their house, well the presumption is that the the kids, the only really innocent people in the scenario, get to live in a house as close as possible to what they used to live in.
I've lost a large chunk of capital and pension, and in a way which has screwed me on some tax things. But I don't confuse this with it being unfair. It just isn't. Don't confuse being angry and upset with being actually hard done by. Would you rather your kids were screwed over by this?
FTFYFor those who know someone who lost their house, well the presumption is that the the kids, the only really innocent people in the scenario, get to live in a house as close to what they used to live in with their mother, that you pay for and see them the least
It's One of those objectively post divorce men fair the worst in terms of access and that is all that really matters
its hard to ignore the mother is still living in the house you provide for your kids*
Its complicated and i agree with 50/50 but it has to be everything rather than, IME, the father pays to have the lesser home and the least access. It was honestly not what I was "getting into "
* she once asked for the maintenance a week early so I took it round in cash, She said and I kid not, "oh great I have just bought an aga of ebay and I need to pay for it"
Most men who get divorced will feel bitter as its generally unfair. Not everything is 50/50 and i suspect that is what grates.
When I split from my ex, I didn't have to pay my ex spousal maintenance because her earnings were on parity with mine once my outgoings and maintenance for the kids was paid. I did however sign over the greater percentage of a decent house. Fortunately I didn't have to sign over my pension.
Every case is different, but i strongly reccomend the excellent wikivorce site which was invaluable to me when I went through this.
Kids change the situation but it is 50/50 after any long marriage (15 years) anyway, so if one partner had a lot more assets before the marriage they are looking at losing half of them (minus half of anything the other partner had) if the marriage breaks down.
Certainly makes you think more about future commitments as you get older.
In my experience solicitors advice is to agree as much as possible so if one side is willing to threaten putting children through a legal process to establish custody then they essentially have the upper hand over the more reasonable other party. Assets acquired prior to getting together are often just bundled and shared despite being significantly unequal. It's complicated and both sides need a legal system that protects them; we need the system to carry on improving by greater recognition of fathers as equal parents and ensuring absent parents meet their responsibilities. Sadly sh#t parents have been able to play the system all too easily, without genuinely putting any children first, at both ends of the spectrum so that decent reasonable parents lose out.
I think some of you may of had some different wedding vows to me.
I'm sure I said something like "and all that I have I share with you".
Perhaps I should have been a little more specific and given a %
indeed...
At work I do get to see some blokes who are genuinely hard done by, but probably more women who get left in the lurch. Relatively few of the blokes getting divorced seem to be eager to become the major providers of child care in this situation, and it is easy to underestimate how much is involved in looking after the kids even if they are heading towards 18-20.
I think some of you may of had some different wedding vows to me.
Almost certainly. I promised that I was never going to give her up, never going to let her down, never going to run around and desert her.
ktaylor - Member
I think some of you may of had some different wedding vows to me.
Personal perspective is everything.
Wedding vows are a complex contract of mutual promises/undertakings and fail for a multitude of reasons. If only they didn't!
[i]I think some of you may of had some different wedding vows to me.
I'm sure I said something like "and all that I have I share with you".[/i]
That's the joining together vows. We're talking about the separation realities.
I think some of you may of had some different wedding vows to me.
there's also the bit that says
till death us do part
which makes consideration of the future implications of sharing everything now seem like a moot point.
I am shaking my head with incomprehension that the attitudes displayed on here still exist in this day and age. I am not surprised some of you have bitter experiences with divorce with attitudes like this.
tjagain - Member
I am shaking my head with incomprehension that the attitudes displayed on here still exist in this day and age. I am not surprised some of you have bitter experiences with divorce with attitudes like this.
[i]Pray, don't find fault with the man that limps,
Or stumbles along the road.
Unless you have worn the moccasins he wears,
Or stumbled beneath the same load.
There may be tears in his soles that hurt
Though hidden away from view.
The burden he bears placed on your back
May cause you to stumble and fall, too.
Don't sneer at the man who is down today
Unless you have felt the same blow
That caused his fall or felt the shame
That only the fallen know.
You may be strong, but still the blows
That were his, unknown to you in the same way,
May cause you to stagger and fall, too.
Don't be too harsh with the man that sins.
Or pelt him with words, or stone, or disdain.
Unless you are sure you have no sins of your own,
And it's only wisdom and love that your heart contains.
For you know if the tempter's voice
Should whisper as soft to you,
As it did to him when he went astray,
It might cause you to falter, too.
Just walk a mile in his moccasins
Before you abuse, criticize and accuse.
If just for one hour, you could find a way
To see through his eyes, instead of your own muse.
I believe you'd be surprised to see
That you've been blind and narrow minded, even unkind.
There are people on reservations and in the ghettos
Who have so little hope, and too much worry on their minds.
Brother, there but for the grace of God go you and I.
Just for a moment, slip into his mind and traditions
And see the world through his spirit and eyes
Before you cast a stone or falsely judge his conditions.
Remember to walk a mile in his moccasins
And remember the lessons of humanity taught to you by your elders.
We will be known forever by the tracks we leave
In other people's lives, our kindnesses and generosity.
Take the time to walk a mile in his moccasins.[/i]
Just saying...
I am shaking my head with incomprehension that the attitudes displayed on here still exist in this day and age. I am not surprised some of you have bitter experiences with divorce with attitudes like this.
whereas I just think you are naive 🙂
Why do think people take out prenuptual agreements then ?
What if you had worked hard all your life, bought a decent house, saved up a good pension, etc, then met someone and married when aged 45, and when aged 60 you divorced because you found out she had started shagging someone else?
Would you really want to lose half of everything you had worked for for to someone who had cheated on you ? Live out your retirement in a flat on half what you thought you were going to have? Whilst she has the other half whilst still shagging that other bloke ?
You would probably change from the righteous stance you have now.
(That's not my story...)
Just saying that a 50/50 split off the bat is unfair in a lot of instances. You may have said "and all that I have I share with you" to start with but there were other bits in that vow, and one of the parties has 'broken' that contract.
Nicely put deepreddave.l I understand the bitterness from some folk - a good pal went thru a bitter contested divorce and I saw what it did to him.
However the idea that the assets all belong to the breadwinner is deeply abhorrent to me. I was brought up to have a strong moral compass and to believe in equality
tjagain - I'm with you,
Turnerguy - how about if you gave up your career to create a family and to support your partner in his work. You are married for 40 years then at retirement age he kicks you out and you are left with no house, no prospect of buying one, no chance of social housing and no pension. While he has all the assets. Nice eh?
Turnerguy - how about if you gave up your career to create a family and to support your partner in his work. You are married for 40 years then at retirement age he kicks you out and you are left with no house, no prospect of buying one, no chance of social housing and no pension. While he has all the assets. Nice eh?
well if you actually read what I said then I didn't suggest that at all.
I said that there is a fair split, based on her lost earnings, her lost earnings capacity, her share of the work raising the family, the need to support the children, etc.
But that is not necessarily 50% and it may even be more in some circumstances.
And the roles of he/she can easily be switched in all my discussions here, not implying any gender differences.
I take it you are not married then ?
Nope - not married. Don't believe in such an outdated practice. Been with the same woman for best part of 40 years and if we ever split then the asetts go 50/50
Problem is turner guy that what you suggest is impossible. How do you know what the lost earnings are? How do you quantify 7 days a week childcare for 40 years in monetary terms?
Edit - I get the "no gender bias" point
Problem is turner guy that what you suggest is impossible. How do you know what the lost earnings are? How do you quantify 7 days a week childcare for 40 years in monetary terms?
you come up with something reasonable - maybe get a 3rd party to.
what I am saying is a blanket 50/50 split is not necessarily fair - like Melania getting 50% of Trumps empire(/debt) if they split, does that sound right ?
For my split I did some research first and then worked out what 50/50 looked like, made some slight modificatons to swap some pensions stuff for equity and support, and then did a wikivorce financial consultation to 'double check' what I thought, and also provide that 'transparency' I mentioned earlier.
The (female) solicitor in the consultation congratulated me on the thoughtful provisions I was making for the wife, and gave me advice on ensuring things were made 'final' and that I didn't leave an ongoing financial liability.
I was just lucky that the wife had a flat to partly offset the fact I had a house before we met, otherwise I would be in a flat and my two cats wouldn't be happy having to share the living room with the bikes.
Haven't quite reached the final bit yet so there is always the chance that the judge will override something, but if he does it might well end up trashing the reasonably amiable relationship I still have with the wife when she is not seeing that t8sser who is still married and has 2 kids, one of which was 8 months old when he hit on my wife...).
tjagain - Member..... if we ever split then the asetts go 50/50
Which end of the Tandem do you get?
if we ever split then the assets go 50/50
It's a good job you agree with what the courts are going to demand anyway.
Any kids ?
Nope - don't like them except with a side of chips 🙂
BTW - its not always 50/50 is it - thats just the assumed starting point
How do you quantify 7 days a week childcare for 40 years in monetary terms?
It ain't 7 days a week for 40 years though is it?! It's 7 days a week for 4 years until the little blighters start school and tapers down from there until they are 18.
Even then a lot of dads do a fair amount of the childcare bit when not at work also (I know I do!).
Nope - not married. Don't believe in such an outdated practice. Been with the same woman for best part of 40 years and if we ever split then the asetts go 50/50
Except there is no way to enforce a split for any assets that aren't jointly owned (cars, pensions, bank accounts, bikes).
Marriage has sod all to do with love and stuff (but you can add that on should you wish). It is a binding legal and financial arrangement that includes protections that simply can't be achieved by any other means.
Some Dad's have equal custody, their ex's earn more than they do and they still got less then 50% of the joint assets despite having substantially more prior to meeting. With a challenging ex and a legal system biased on gender that's where reasonable gets you if you wish to avoid family court.
Don't confuse bitterness with a disappointed acceptance of reality; the system is a very blunt tool for an infinite set of circumstances.
Don't get married and get a pre-nup
TJ your partner cannot share your pension - there is no legal means of achieving that inc transferring a portion to her. I never had an issue with 50/50, my ex wife did she wanted and got more than 50/50 - kids where 21, 25 and 27 at the time. My ex got a settlement way more than would have ever earned had she worked full time with no kids. That's the UK for you
What @danny says. I love my kids very much and enjoyed helping out every minute I was home. I don't denegrade the work my wife put in but to say it was a sacrafice is a bit of a stretch
TJ I offered my ex 50% of everything and she refused so we had 18 months of lawyers and she ended up with less £ but more than 50%, the latter being her main objective "on principal"
Which end of the Tandem do you get?
She gets the Tandem, he gets Jerry Again 🙂
More nonsense Jamba - the pension pot is part of the assets and has a value - this is a part of the total assets of the partnership. She is entitled to half of that value - either in pension or something else.
Another thing most folk here don't seem to realise is the value of a housekeeper ie a stay at home wife who does the majority of the running of the household. Last time I saw this costed its value is around £50 000 a year - thats how much it would cost to buy in the services most stay at home mums provide. Multiply that by 20 years of marriage and add in a bit of interests its well over a million pounds.
thats a million pounds worth of work to be taken into account in the settlement.
More nonsense Jamba - the pension pot is part of the assets and has a value - this is a part of the total assets of the partnership. She is entitled to half of that value - either in pension or something else.
I think that's actually more nonsense from you, not poor Jamba (:-))
If you’re unmarried and have separated, the Law says you aren’t entitled to a share of your former partners pension entitlement when he or she reaches retirement.
from here :
You are as bad as my future ex-wife, making authoritative statements when you don't actually know what you are talking about.
Hope your partner knows this, or she has built a decent pension pot from your joint contributions.
Another thing most folk here don't seem to realise is the value of a housekeeper ie a stay at home wife who does the majority of the running of the household. Last time I saw this costed its value is around £50 000 a year - thats how much it would cost to buy in the services most stay at home mums provide. Multiply that by 20 years of marriage and add in a bit of interests its well over a million pounds.thats a million pounds worth of work to be taken into account in the
settlement.
more rubbish.
when you split up I am going to find your partners solicitor and forward all these posts to them...
We were talking about divorce so that quote does not apply. After marriage pensions are a part of the pot. Cross posting? Misunderstandings?
My partner has her own pension. Probably a bit less than mine but she has more savings oh and I put tens of thousands of man hours into house renovations - but she bought me beer when I was skint. I paid for the last holiday - but she paid for some when I was skint and so on and so on.
find an equitable way to divide that lot up! 😉
You are as bad as my future ex-wife, making authoritative statements when you don't actually know what you are talking about.
and her mother...
Turner - its not nonsense. If you had to buy in the childcare, cleaning, washing, shopping etc thats what it would cost. This is why the non earning partner is entitled to a share of the assets - because by doing this she has contribute.
We won't ever need a lawyer - 50/50 is easy and neither of us are vindictive.
