Settlement help.

-deleted-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2020 01:59PM by ThelmaHorse.

Bearing in mind the figures you are almost certainly wasting your time seeking 60% of the equity. The property is jointly owned and it is not a short relationship. If you hope to settle by agreement you would be better off working on the basis of an equal division of the equity.

If you do not then I can tell you what is likely to happen. First, you are living in the property and paying the mortgage. Your wife can therefore afford to wait on the basis that the property is likely to rise in value. Eventually if you cannot reach agreement and a court has to decide then (a) you will both be wasting money on litigation which will be disproportionate to the amount at issue in this case and (b) a court is likely to think that an equal division is appropriate because different spouses contribute in different ways. It is very unlikely that a court would think your greater financial contribution entitled you to more (in these particular circumstances at least).

-deleted-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2020 02:00PM by ThelmaHorse.

I suggest he thinks about the figures. The amount at issue seems to be £24,000. An equal division of that would be £12,000 each. The husband wants £14,400 and for the wife to have £9,600. Therefore he is arguing about an extra £2,400. Is it worth going to court over £2,400? No. It would be absolutely bonkers. How long do you think it would be before he ran up legal costs of £2,400 so that no matter what the outcome he would be better off? He would be much better off trying to settle this on the basis of an equal division with his wife rather than, possibly, going to court over such a difference. The figures should scream the answer to him.

-deleted-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2020 02:01PM by ThelmaHorse.

This is not a short marriage. Or, at least, when someone says 'less than five years' they usually mean 4.5 years rather than 12 months. Also, it is just not the length of the marriage which counts. A prior period of cohabitation also counts.

As to paying the deposit, you will forgive me but I did read the facts as set out in your original post which included payment of the deposit.

Before you and your friend go down these rabbit holes I would suggest you look at the figures. They actually scream out whether it would be sensible to go to court about £2,400. It isn't.

-deleted-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2020 02:01PM by ThelmaHorse.

-deleted-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2020 02:01PM by ThelmaHorse.

None of this stuff makes any difference. Look at the figures. It is bonkers to go to court over something like this rather than try to settle it. Assuming I am correct that 'less than five years' means 4.5 years not 12 months, this is NOT a short marriage. And even if it were it would make no difference because of the figures and because the house is in JOINT names. Your friend is deluding himself.

-deleted-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2020 10:16AM by ThelmaHorse.

If I had a pound for every time someone has told me, 'X's solicitor told X this' then I would be very wealthy. What solicitors tell their clients and what clients say their solicitor has said are often two very different things.

In this case you do not have to be a lawyer to see that the figures here do not justify going to court. Any solicitor who does advise your friend to go to court over a difference so small (and I am doubtful that there are any) would not be doing your friend any favours. If ever there was a situation where your friend ought to be given firm advice this is it.

Furthermore I think there are no end of people here who can vouch for the fact that the financial outcome in divorce is not an accounting exercise. You do not get out the pounds you put in. Different spouses contribute to a marriage in different ways.

I understand your points however i am very close with the wifes parents and evem they admit she put nothing into this marriage.
-deleted-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2020 10:16AM by ThelmaHorse.

Well, she can't get £30,000 because on the figures you have presented there isn't £30,000 to divide. Whether she spent her own money on whatever or whether she had affairs is irrelevant and probably whether she abused her husband is irrelevant. Those are grounds for divorce rather than having any influence upon how matrimonial property is divided.

Also, you say nothing about their respective incomes. The husband's solution is that he and his new partner continue to live in the former matrimonial home which is presumably to be transferred to the husband in return for less than half its net value. So the husband and his new partner will end up with a home of their own. What does the ex wife get according to the husband's proposal? If it is effectively a small capital lump sum and she has a relatively modest income what, if anything, does this proposal do to enable her to buy a home of her own?

Your friend is focussing on what he alleges his financial contribution to the marriage to have been. In fact that is not going to be determinative in this case. What a court is much more likely to be interested in is the needs of both parties (the ex wife as well as the husband).

Of course she cannot get £30,000 because there isn't £30,000 and, even if there was, it would almost certainly be unfair for her to receive 100% of the capital assets. So far as I can she there is only one defensible reason for the husband trying to claim 60% of the assets which has nothing to do with any of the reasons you have given. It is that if, say, one unreasonable spouse is saying, 'I want 100% of the assets and then sum' it may actually not be sensible to go to court with the husband's position being, 'I will give you 50%'. There is a (small) risk that in such circumstances a court might simply split the difference and award the ex wife 75% of the net assets. Rather than run that (small) risk it may be better to have an opening position which offers less than 50%. Nevertheless I cannot see any circumstances under which the husband will actually get more than 50% of the assets on the basis of the figures and facts you have set out.

-deleted-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2020 10:17AM by ThelmaHorse.

No-one said that pensions acquired during the marriage were not joint assets. The questions asked have always related to dividing up the equity in the former matrimonial home. Whether pensions are relevant very much depends upon the figures. If, say the difference in the value of the capital transfer values of their respective pensions was of the same sort of difference that you have discussed in respect of capital then I doubt that any court would think it was economical to order pension sharing. On the other hand, if there is a big difference that is a different matter.

The husbnad has no pension. The wife has a pension cash equivalent of 11,000

It would not normally be regarded as economic to order a pension share for a pension with a capital transfer value as low as that. The charges would normally be disproportionate. Having said that, if the pension was built up during the course of the marriage it would very likely be counted as part of the wife's share of the assets (although not pound for pound because money in a pension is not directly equivalent to cash).

Rather more pertinently in whose name are the various loans and are any of them secured on the property? I ask because husband and wife want to treat them in different ways. There may be a reason for that.

One loan in the wifes name, the other in the husbands. But all for home improvements on the house. New widnows, new kicthen, new lounge etc.

The wife is arguing that the loans for home improvements shouldn't be deducted if she is bought out or if the house if forced to sell, but surly this is not right as a solicitor has told the husband it must be deducted.



What roughly would be the suggested value of the pension if counted as an asset? The pension itself it for more but the cash equivalent on the form E is stated as 11,000 (a few pound over i am rounding down)

Well, the wife has a point about the loans. If the house was sold then obviously what would be available for division between the two of them would be the net equity after repaying the mortgage and the loans. BUT, and this is a big but, if the husband intends retaining the property why on earth should he not repay the wife's loan from HIS share? It was incurred for home improvements after all and he is proposing that he retains the property and the benefit of the home improvements. Why should the wife be expected to fund home improvements from her share (which is effectively what reducing the equity by the amount of her loan amounts to).

As to the pension, it has a capital transfer value of about £11,000. That is how pensions are valued. A capital transfer value is not the same as cash in the pocket, that's all, just as an apple is not a pear.

So what amount would be fair as an asset the wife has in the calculations during settlement.

There is no formula. Ordinarily a pension with this sort of value would be regarded as trivial.

But surly this should count as an asset retained by the wife? Meaning if the equity is split 50/50 she would leave the mortgage in a greater position than the husband with this asset plus other jointly owned assets ?


David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> improvements from her share (which is
> effectively what reducing the equity by the amount
> of her loan amounts to).

But the matrimonal debts were used to claculate the equity, then split and then an extra x amount for the wifves home improvement loan paid to her as well as her share of the equity.

I am not going to spend any more time on this. If your friend wants legal advice he should do so on his own account.

Wrong thread



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2020 02:02PM by Newstart2020.