Author Topic: The cost of divorce  (Read 1662 times)

Offline VitIron

I saw something on social media the other day that outlined the following scenario:

A husband was faithful to his wife, he treated her well and provided for her and their children.

But if the marriage ended in divorce due to her adultery then the husband (in addition to paying child support) would still have to give a significant proportion of his wealth and assets to his wife which would probably lead to him losing his house.

Is this true or an exaggeration?

Forgive my ignorance about this - I've never married and I don't know anyone personally who has got divorced under those circumstances.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2023, 01:28:16 pm by VitIron »

Offline toon972

Yes that is true, even though my children are both over eighteen I had to pay for my ex wife.

Offline VitIron

Yes that is true, even though my children are both over eighteen I had to pay for my ex wife.

So even if the wife is at fault, the husband would probably have to sell his house?  :scare:

The guy who was describing this scenario said that he would never get married because there is no benefit to the man in doing so. I can see where he's coming from!

What type of support does a husband have to pay his wife if the children are grown up?

Is it a one off payment or a series of ongoing regular payments? And how is the amount calculated?

Offline Spunky34

  • Age Check : 18+

  • Ban Countdown
    Loading...
  • Posts: 446
  • Likes: 6
  •  
  • Reviews: 11
The starting point is to add up all the matrimonial assets and split those 50:50 (although on a settlement this can be changed, taking into account things like custody of children, future earnings capacity etc).  So unless both husband and wife have contributed equally, someone is going to feel as though they have paid something over to the other.  In a scenario where the wife was the main breadwinner, chances are that it would be her paying out her wealth. 

My point is, it isn’t a male vs female thing as such.  It is more common that the man will have to pay out because of all the things that tend to lead to men having higher salaries/greater wealth etc.  But there is no systematic bias against men.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2023, 01:37:57 pm by Spunky34 »

Offline VitIron

The starting point is to add up all the matrimonial assets and split those 50:50 (although on a settlement this can be changed, taking into account things like custody of children, future earnings capacity etc).  So unless both husband and wife have contributed equally, someone is going to feel as though they have paid something over to the other.  In a scenario where the wife was the main breadwinner, chances are that it would be her paying out her wealth. 

My point is, it isn’t a male vs female thing.

Thanks.

Does this mean that the division of matrimonial assets is the same regardless of who is at fault?

Doesn't the fact that it was one person's adultery that ended the marriage have any bearing on this?

Offline Spunky34

  • Age Check : 18+

  • Ban Countdown
    Loading...
  • Posts: 446
  • Likes: 6
  •  
  • Reviews: 11
Thanks.

Does this mean that the division of matrimonial assets is the same regardless of who is at fault?

Doesn't the fact that it was one person's adultery that ended the marriage have any bearing on this?

50:50 is the starting position when the court or the divorcing couple are trying to work out what’s right.  It doesn’t mean it’s the end position. 

It is possible that the behaviour of one party could be taken into account in a court settlement, but it’s rare.  Case law suggests that the bar for taking it into account is extremely high (for example attempted murder.  Simply shagging someone else is unlikely to be considered).  The family court isn’t really there to punish for behaviour during the marriage, the main focus is on dividing the assets fairly to meet the needs of the spouse.

Obviously if the settlement is decided outside the court then both parties are agreeing to it, and that could be for all kinds of reasons, with all kinds of different things taken into account when the financial settlement is finalised. 

Also worth bearing in mind that people may have other motivations to agree to ‘disadvantageous’ terms, for example just to get out of the marriage quickly they might agree to give away more than they might do if they go to court.  Ending a marriage isn’t just about the finances.

Offline VitIron

50:50 is the starting position when the court or the divorcing couple are trying to work out what’s right.  It doesn’t mean it’s the end position. 


Thanks.

What if a married couple live together in the house that the husband owned before they met?

How is that taken into account if they get divorced?

Offline Spunky34

  • Age Check : 18+

  • Ban Countdown
    Loading...
  • Posts: 446
  • Likes: 6
  •  
  • Reviews: 11
Thanks.

What if a married couple live together in the house that the husband owned before they met?

How is that taken into account if they get divorced?

There isn’t a one size fits all answer, the court will have to consider all circumstances and it is possible that a court may order a property adjustment as part of the settlement.  These can include transferring the property from one party to another (this can include buying out someone else’s interest), or selling the house and dividing the proceeds.  But the circumstances of one divorce will differ from another, so it’s impossible to give a general answer.

Also to note, no-one can be forced to leave the family home before the divorce settlement is finalised, regardless of who bought it (assuming that the house in question has been a matrimonial home, ie where both husband and wife have lived).  So in your example the wife continues to have a right to live there.  These are known as “home rights”, and can be registered at the land registry (note this is not a change of ownership).  “Home rights” only apply until the financial settlement is finalised either by the parties independently or by the court - this will determine what the future of the house is. 

Offline VitIron

There isn’t a one size fits all answer, the court will have to consider all circumstances and it is possible that a court may order a property adjustment as part of the settlement.  These can include transferring the property from one party to another (this can include buying out someone else’s interest), or selling the house and dividing the proceeds.  But the circumstances of one divorce will differ from another, so it’s impossible to give a general answer.

Thanks for your responses  :thumbsup:

I don't know much about these things but if, for example, the husband owned the house before he met his wife and he was the only one contributing to the mortgage then I think he should keep the house and it shouldn't form any part of the settlement.

Offline Spunky34

  • Age Check : 18+

  • Ban Countdown
    Loading...
  • Posts: 446
  • Likes: 6
  •  
  • Reviews: 11
Thanks for your responses  :thumbsup:

I don't know much about these things but if, for example, the husband owned the house before he met his wife and he was the only one contributing to the mortgage then I think he should keep the house and it shouldn't form any part of the settlement.

And that might happen, the settlement would have to take into account the future financial needs of both parties. 

However, if for example there were children involved and custody had been awarded to the wife, who didn’t have any property of her own and perhaps didn’t have a job - perhaps because it had been agreed she would “stay at home and look after the children” - it would seem strange to me for the court to kick her and the children out of the house.  Under those circumstances, if she was going to leave the property, the husband would presumably be expected to pay a significant amount either as a one off or under an ongoing arrangement (money he might not have apart from tied up in the house).  The court would need to consider future earnings potential etc etc.  It’s so complicated.

Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to illustrate the kind of things that the court would have to take into account.  One issue with this is that for so many people the equity they have in their house is by far the biggest asset, and it’s incredibly hard to get a 50:50 split of assets under those circumstances.

Offline Watts.E.Dunn

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,632
  • Likes: 69
  •  
  • Reviews: 47
If young children are involved it is very likly that the man will loose the bloody lot:(((

Offline Colston36

If young children are involved it is very likly that the man will loose the bloody lot:(((

I think this varies depending on a multitude of factors. My last divorce cost me property worth a million, plus half my pension, Why? A lousy lawyer. Nothing else.

Offline JontyR

Yeah, its dealt with like the break up of a partnership.

Everything you have before is probably yours to keep. Every thing that was earned whilst together is split 50:50.

Then the costs relating to kids are taken into account.

And then the package has to be set up so that both parties are able to function independently.

Offline fudi_maar

This is what's called "divorce-rape" of a man. In fact, there have been cases in the US where the DNA tests show that the kids were not of the husband, but the courts still insist on the wife getting majority of the assets.

Offline VitIron

Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to illustrate the kind of things that the court would have to take into account. 

I understand.

I appreciate your responses  :thumbsup:

Thank you  ;)

Offline radioman33

Unless you do a prenup it’s not worth getting married,it’s dying out.Kevin Costner case is pretty nasty one.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2023, 10:30:57 am by radioman33 »

Offline Blackpool Rock

Unless you do a prenup it’s not worth getting married,it’s dying out.Kevin Costner case is pretty nasty one.
That's quite a hard sell though isn't it  :unknown:

Oh yes darling I love you, let's get married, oh but just one thing in case it all goes tits up, I need you to sign this.....................

Prenups are probably more for the rich and famous where they can justify it or broach it along the lines of my solicitor / accountant / whoever "Is insisting" on it etc

I did know a couple of guys who got royally shafted 25-30 years ago when the CSA came looking for blood  :scare:
Not sure if it's changed but as posted above these guys were cheated on then kicked out, hardly saw their kids but basically had to pay the vast majority of their wages to support the ex wife.
I ran through one guys money with him, he only had a basic minimum wage type job but by the time he had paid rent and bought food there was fuck all left, I asked him how he was supposed to put fuel in the car to get to work and he replied "I don't know, i've given them all my details and they aren't interested", apparently they did tell him to find somewhere cheaper to rent but he was already in some cheap shitty 1 bed flat  :thumbsdown:

Yet the narrative that constantly pushed is that marriage is far better financially for men than it is for women  :unknown:
Strange though how i've only ever heard that being said by women  :timeout:
« Last Edit: September 20, 2023, 11:20:57 am by Blackpool Rock »

Offline JontyR

That's quite a hard sell though isn't it  :unknown:

Oh yes darling I love you, let's get married, oh but just one thing in case it all goes tits up, I need you to sign this.....................

Prenups are probably more for the rich and famous where they can justify it or broach it along the lines of my solicitor / accountant / whoever "Is insisting" on it etc

I did know a couple of guys who got royally shafted 25-30 years ago when the CSA came looking for blood  :scare:
Not sure if it's changed but as posted above these guys were cheated on then kicked out, hardly saw their kids but basically had to pay the vast majority of their wages to support the ex wife.
I ran through one guys money with him, he only had a basic minimum wage type job but by the time he had paid rent and bought food there was fuck all left, I asked him how he was supposed to put fuel in the car to get to work and he replied "I don't know, i've given them all my details and they aren't interested", apparently they did tell him to find somewhere cheaper to rent but he was already in some cheap shitty 1 bed flat  :thumbsdown:

Yet the narrative that constantly pushed is that marriage is far better financially for men than it is for women  :unknown:
Strange though how i've only ever heard that being said by women  :timeout:
Pre-nups aren't legally binding in English law.

When it comes to kids there are actually calculators online provided by the courts. The more time the child spends with one parent the more the other has to pay.

The calculators actually work out what each parent should contribute based on their income and the amount of time spent with and the number of children. Both will have a figure and you take one from the other.

Your friend should have pushed for more time with more of the kids. If the kids are too numerous and too young to allow the Mum to go out to work then yeah, he's screwed. But if he has them 50/50 and enables her to work then that will be much more effective in reducing his liability. And he gets to see his kids more. 
« Last Edit: September 20, 2023, 11:35:34 am by JontyR »

Offline Jomoore


Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to illustrate the kind of things that the court would have to take into account.  One issue with this is that for so many people the equity they have in their house is by far the biggest asset, and it’s incredibly hard to get a 50:50 split of assets under those circumstances.

Just would add that for some people in a longer marriage and further into their career, their pension might be their biggest asset, so don't overlook that.

Offline Watts.E.Dunn

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,632
  • Likes: 69
  •  
  • Reviews: 47

Offline JontyR

External Link/Members Only

And this "firm"

External Link/Members Only

all intresting reading and viewing!..
Be careful when clicking on some of these sites, all of a sudden you can find that divorce lawyers start appearing regularly in your pop up adds on websites that you (And your wife) visit!!

Offline lillythesavage

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Posts: 2,666
  • Likes: 36
  •  
  • Reviews: 17
Unless you do a prenup it’s not worth getting married,it’s dying out.Kevin Costner case is pretty nasty one.

Short sighted, and to most everything comes down to money.

I first got divorced @ 23, we had 2 houses, and a business I helped her start with her mother, so she could work around the kids, lets just say what she said. Great father, useless husband "  :D.
I walked away from the business, let her handle the sale of one house, I know she sold it for more than she said  :D, she was given the other, I carried on working hard and playing even harder. had a few relationships but they were never going to work, not the way I was living life.
The deal with this was not getting chased, or asked for regular cash for her, of course the child was looked after, so were her subsequent ones and cousins, treated like my own, holidays, clothes etc, believe it or not, taking more than 1 child on holiday is much easier than 1, I often had 7, for most of the School summer holidays with me, and subsequently the second wife, in Ireland.
We have remained good friends, and I was with both her subsequent husbands, and the children from those.

Just last week the youngest and her BF, handed their car over to valet parkers, who refused it once they had left, because the mot expired, I took the truck to the airport, paid to get it out of short term, took it for an mot, bought the 2 new tyres it needed, so it was ready for their return.

5 years or so later, met the second wife, married maybe 9 years later, how the fuck she put up with me  :D, joining in was the only way. Along the way though, she persuaded me to buy another house, stop renting, and as I got older, the lifestyle got harder to recover from, the playing away though, was a different matter.

More than 30 years after meeting, we are still married, but separated around 8 years now, I am living in the house we bought, a time will come when divorce is required, and I will HAPPILY, without any fight, hand over half the money, at the moment I pay half her rent her credit card, which she does not abuse, and help out financially in other ways if required.

We too, are very good friends, as I am with both of their families, though I think I posted this before, the first wives mother, meeting me at a funeral and suffering from dementia, took one look at me and said " please tell me you are not back with my daughter "  :D

The truth is I may not be here, or a right fucking mess, the way I lived my life, I certainly would not be living in a bought and paid for house, it is not just one partner that pays for it or looks after it.

I do tend to look back with no regrets in anything, cannot change the past, and the future will throw up whatever it does.

Always going to be a one sided view on a mostly male forum, so another view on the subject from someone who has experienced the subject  :D.
Not once has a solicitor been involved, there have been no fights or battles, communication is always the key, so is admitting when you are wrong, I might be odd, but I cannot understand hatred for someone you have spent a lot of time with  :unknown:, Maybe just been lucky, like to think it is more. Though I do not get hung up on monogamy  :D
Banned reason: Undesirable, previously banned, still attacking members, discussing UKP with SP, toxic personality, it’s a no from me!,
Banned by: Iloveoral

Offline Watts.E.Dunn

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,632
  • Likes: 69
  •  
  • Reviews: 47
Be careful when clicking on some of these sites, all of a sudden you can find that divorce lawyers start appearing regularly in your pop up adds on websites that you (And your wife) visit!!

Well that one wont! Thye do a very good job but can cahrge well, still saved me a lot of moolah a while ago:)