An article by the BBC got me curious
Even 20mil is not enough for her. Do you think it's right for someone who may not have had a part in developing a fortune take half of it like that.
As they say, Hell hath no fury like a woman's Scorned
Printable View
An article by the BBC got me curious
Even 20mil is not enough for her. Do you think it's right for someone who may not have had a part in developing a fortune take half of it like that.
As they say, Hell hath no fury like a woman's Scorned
NO she shouldn't, but then can men take half of what a succesful women earns? :)
Oh, there are so many factors in that decision.
First, when you say "should", do you mean morally or legally? If the latter, then they don't automatically get half. It's more complicated than that.
If you mean morally, then it's still more complicated than that.
For a start, how old are the couple, and how long have they been married? It is distinctly possible that, in the course of a long marriage, the expectation was that husband develops career and earns the money, while wife raises kids and keeps house. Even if a rather old-fashioned view, it's still quite possible, and the older the couple, the more likely. So .... the odds are that even if the wife had no direct involvement in generating a given fortune, she may well have sacrificed 20 years of earnings potential, but more than that, be old enough that it would be hard to now have the career she could have had 20 years earlier, so future earnings levels would be badly compromised, as well as past earnings lost.
For example, suppose wife is highly educated, Oxbridge law degree, reasonably newly qualified barrister at, say, 30. Odds are she has a high-flying and high-earning career ahead of her. Then she gets married and, by mutual agreement, does the mother and housewife thing.
Now, 20 years later, can she EVER rebuild that sacrificed high-flyer career, at 50, with next to no senior experience? Had she stayed at work, she could well be a partner, company director .... or Prime Minister, by now. But, the prospects for future earnings, going forward, are a LOT lower than husband's. After all, he's got a current career, 20 years experience and excellent prospects, and she's effectively newly qualified with minimal experience, starting at the bottom .... if she gets the chance to start at all.
So, never mind past or current assets, what about future earning potential? His, with the solid career development, could be £500,000, while hers, as little more than a trainee, £30,000 .... if she can get a relevant job at all.
And that's just one aspect of it.
Another would be whether there are dependent kids? If so, who looks after them? And hence, who gets what in the matrimonual home?
Yet another would be that he has a career, and very possibly, a guaranteed substantial pension, ensuring a good income, on retirement. She, during 20 years of marriage, has a reasonable expectation that that pension covers her in her later years too, or perhaps ensure's surviving spouse cover, etc. But, after divorce, that's gone .... unless the settlement takes account of it, which it usually does.
Should she get half? It depends, IMHO, entirely on circumstances. But she may well have given up a lot more than it first appears during the marriage, and have substantially reduced prospects in the future as a result.
Half? I don't know, but for a lengthy marriage, it's not an unreasonable starting point.
In theory, I'd like to agree with Saracen. But it assumes that the whole children issue is one that has been fully decided in a rational consensual basis between husband and wife. In the large majority of cases, it is the woman who actively wants the kids and the husband, at best, just goes along for a quiet life. Or there is an accidental pregnancy. So instead of there being a rational discussion about the finances and roles, it in reality often becomes a legally-enforced parasitic relationship, with huge penalties on the man of the kind that assume we're in some kind of 1950s timewarp.
Well, even in the case of accidental pregnancy. the husband was presumably there at the time of the accident. If there's doubt about that, a simple and relatively cheap DNA test will confirm it one way or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
As for whether the issue of kids was rational or not, both were there at the time. And both need to accept responsibility for the decision. It's a bit late to turn round years later and say "oh but I didn't want kids". You have kids, and they need care and feeding, and like it or not, Dad has responsibility in that. It's not the kid's fault that Dad didn't want kids but couldn't keep his trousers on.
He did, after all, have the option to nail his colours to the mast, that he didn't want kids, 10 or 20, ir whatever, years earlier before getting married, and having them. Then, wife could either have accepted that, kept her career, and now be in a far better personal financial pisition without him, or she could have kicked him to the curb and gone and found a husband that actually did want kids with her. He could have had a succession of live-in short-term girlfriends, and now not be looking at divorce.
It's not so much 50's timewarp as the result of basic biological differences between him and her.
And for that matter, it'd be very hard for husband to prove, after 20 years of marriage, that despite having kids, he didn't actually want any, and lots of men do. For that matter, not all women want kids. But it would be very easy for any bloke to claim he didn't want kids, in a divorce settlement. There's no way to prove it, either way.
Of course, not all women either do or want to stay at home to raise the kids. And increasingly, not all can afford to. But, where we are talking about people with multi-million pound net worth, let alone billion pound net worth, wife doesn't gave to get a job, be it high-flying lawyer or at a Tesco checkout, because they need the paycheck.
As I said, it all depends on circumstances. IMHO.
The general presumption is that all the assets of a long marriage are added up and split so that each part has 50%, regardless of who may have contributed the most financially.
The over-riding consideration of the court is that neither should become an undue burden on the state, so the aim seems to be to make each party self sufficient, as far as possible.
You phrased the question in a very interesting way.
As if automatically the onus is on a female to get a male's belongings, never the reverse.
Too many scenarios for this but the main one that gets me is this...
Women has no real career aspect, marries then cheats on the husband and gets a divorce... what happens then is that the husband loses almost everything, even more if there are kids! I have about 6 real life people I know who have ended a marriage like this and they have to scrape the barrel its depressing.
For instance a family friend works full time and earns just over 35k per year and his ex wife was a part time hairdresser (very part time...) they had a child and she stayed at home (part time hairdressing doesnt get you much lol) and well she went off with some other lad and divorced him after 6 years... as bad as cheating on you its stupid that he spent loads in court fees and shes claiming she lost earning due to him, he now works 48 hours a week ( 12 more than before) and he loses half of his earning, lost half of his savings and had to sell things to pay her off.
Its depressing, one of the reason why marriage is always a tough decision :P.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hicks12
My (hypothetical) scenario is perhaps one extreme. Your rather less hypothetical, and no doubt far more common, example is rather at the other end of the spectrum.
I think what, in my judgement "should", in the morally justified sense, happen, though by no means expecting that it's what actually will happen, is that it all depends on circumstances.
I don't think it ought to be, or indeed is, automatic that the wife gets half.
Anither real world example for you, though I'm not saying who.
After about 10 (or close to it) years, wife cheats on husband with hubby's best friend. Wife and best friend go off together. Wife gets, basically, beggar all. Husband gets most of the assets, AND custody of the kids. Wife gets the (now ex-best) friend, and not much more.
Circumstances vary a lot, and so do divorce settlements. And it's worth remembering that not all divorces involve courts. An amicable arrangement is far cheaper, and the only ones sure to well out of court cases are divorce lawyers.
Yeah I got a few friends like that. There should be some way or clause if one partner cheats or sabotages a relationship they forfeit a % or at least be on the back foot as they were the ones who put the marriage at risk/end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hicks12
Contraceptives used in marriage are predominantly female-only. Decisions on abortions / morning after pill are female only. The decision making process is rigged - the right to choose is a women-only club.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
My advice to young men nowadays would simply be don't get married. I'm middle aged and seen too many mates living in bedsits with a 12 year old car, while wife and kids sit in house with new car. The cookie cutter template is wife cuts husband off in bed after the kids she wants are born, she gets moody and tired and loses her figure but it is all his fault. Several miserable years later he sleeps with a woman from the office yet it is legally his fault so pay pay pay.
Well .... condoms? Or, snip-snip.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
That was partly my point. It takes two to tango, as it were. If a husband leaves sole responsibility to the wife, he can't compain if she makes the decisions. If he wants to avoid accidental pregnancy, use a condom, get the snip, or abstain. But he cannot reasonably expect to, erm, have his cake and eat it.
And my advice would be for them to choose carefully, don't make rash or impetuous decisions, and then do what they think is right for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
I'm past middle age, got married relatively late (which might be a good idea, by the way), and am now on 25+ years of counting myself lucky enough to have a wonderful wife that I utterly adore, and as far as I can tell, the feeling us reciprocal. Both my parents and hers were married in their teens, and stayed married to their dying days. I have friends that married before I did and have kids of nearly 30, and friends whose marriages have fallen apart for various reasons.
There's no guarantees in either marriage, or life, beyond death and taxes ..... well, taxes for sure, as clever doctors might solve death. But .... if you don't take risks, you don't lose but you sure don't win. For me, the best decision I ever made, by a VERY long way, was marrying the Mrs.
As others have said, there is no 'one size fits all' when it comes to this kind of situation.
People will no doubt know people at each end of the spectrum (happily married, happily unmarried, happily divorced, unhappily divorced, unhappily married etc....)
Should this not be "Should partners get half of everything in divorce"
To assume a woman is not the dominant earner and the relationship is heterosexual isn't exactly opening it up for interesting debate on things like custody etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by finlay666
Yeah - it should - doesn't change the more common reality of earning imbalances, woman being typically the primary at-home childcarer, and that women tend to do better in the vast majority of divorce settlements.
In pretty much every case I know, even with no kids and after only 5 years married, wife gets the house and car. I'm sure people will know fairer cases - I, personally, don't.
Suspect pre-nups will become more common over time, and marriage will become less common. Once the domain of trophy wives for rich businessmen and pop-stars, it seems like the only reasonable way of avoiding getting reamed by a legal principle from another era.
You may well be right about women doing better in many/most divorce settlements, but in many cases, that will be a fair outcome, for the reasons already given. The trade-off, fir examole, is often apparently uneven in tangible assets (house, car, etc) because of either earnings potential, or guaranteed future income due to pension rights. Unless you look at the full spread of any settlement, it's hard to tell if it's fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
Unless it's changed, pre-nups have no legally binding effect in the UK, though perhaps they should.
You may be right about marriage becoming less common, but like most things in life, the decision to marry is complex.
The stance you gave there assumes things will go wrong. But .... what about when they don't?
For instance, inheritance tax. By not being married, a "couple" could find themselves facing a very large inheritance tax bill if one oartner dies, rather than divorcing. Last time I looked, that was 40% of anything over £325,000.
So .... suppose you have been together with your partner for 25+ years. You're still happy together, no plans to split. That, by the way, is my situation. Then, the males dies ..... which I rather hope isn't my situation. ;)
Now suppose the house is worth, say, £1.5 million.
If the couple are married, inheritance tax = £0.
If they are not married (and have taken no other legal measures) ....
Excess over threshold = £1,500,000 - £325,000 = £1,175,000.
Inheritance tax = 40% = £470,000.
Now, I love the Mrs to bits, and I DO NOT want to stick her wife a bill for nearly half a million quid to carry on owning the house we've lived in while, erm, I was alive.
Anyone entering into a loving relationship is going to want to protect the other partner, should something like this happen. And it can hapoen, to anybody, at any time.
There are "other legal measures" that can be taken. But if you want to get the benefits, like inheritance tax protection, but implicit in that protection is "other measures" to enjoy joint ownership, and if ownership is joint, you are going to have issues with who gets what on separation, never mind whether you're married or not.
It IS possible to take precautions, such as cohabitation agreements, or registering property in joint names, but they MUST be done quite carefully, and professionally, or they will fall in any legal challenge, and drawing them (cohabitation agreements) up isn't cheap. Several thousand pounds, typically.
What I certainly would advise is ANYONE in a long-term relationship protects themselves. It may be that men get a raw deal in divorce, but any partner in a relationship which isn't marriage (or civil partnership) and doesn't include "other legal measures" could well find themselves entitled to nothing, or next to nothing, if it all goes wrong, years or decades later.
Bear in mind, supposed "common law" wives (or husbands) have next to no legally enforceable rights, even if living together for decades. You could find, for instance, if your partner dies, their property (which could include the shared house) is disposed of either by will, or intestacy law, and it goes to the kids, who sell it out from under you, and you end up homeless, with little or no recourse to law.
Marriage certainly is, financially, a mixed bag. It comes with benefits and resonsibilities. Which is why, while it can be wonderful, it certainly can also end up being very expensive, so I'd suggest not rushing into it, not doing it too young, and not doing it without thinking it through.
But, personally, it was far and away, by a billion light years, the best decision I ever made. YMMV.
i agree but in this scenario below she shouldnt get half:Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Say if both the husband and wife have decent careers they have both be striving for but the husband earns 3x more and they have no kids. The wife should not be entitled to half morally imo due to the fact that from your example, the wife hasnt sacrificed being a wife for her career and instead still pursued the career she wanted but less money compared to the husband.
The less money part is by choice. It would have been the wife's choice to pursue that career knowing it wont pay as much as the husbands role so in theory she should not be entitled to half as she hasnt done the normal sit at home being a housewife throughout the marriage
Bear in mind that my example was an example of one set of circumstances that might infer a type of dispersal of assets. There are countless other examples, and quite a range of factors. The existence of dependent children is clearly one such factor, and indeed their welfare will be an overriding interest, but there are a large numver of other aspects, including the age of both parties, the length of the marriage, the nature of assets, such as inheritances and any expectation of such in the near future, and of course, and disabilities. And in extremis, the conduct of one or both parties during the marriage, and in the period between separation and any court case.Quote:
Originally Posted by j.o.s.h.1408
There are something like a dozen broad categories of consideration, each and every one of which can be quite complex, and judges not only have to establish a position in each of them that is fair and compliant with legal principles, but establish a balance between these categories.
One of the factors will be standard of living. It is reasonable to consider the standard of living during the marriage, and the more so the longer the marriage lasted, but that does NOT mean that a wife can automatically expect to continue in a lifestyle to which she had become accustomed. Her "financial need" will be, but not only is it not an absolute right to continue to enjoy a given level of lifestyle, but future expectation is not something given much weight by courts.
In the example you quote, there are quite a few complications. One will be what assets there are, AND when and how they were acquired, and owned. For instance, the matrimonial home could be something bought in joint names, during the marriage. And indeed, usually will be. It could also be that it was an inherited property, in a sole name, acquired before the marriage. I know personally of one divorce where that was the case. And of another where one oarty bought the house outright prior to the marriage (so no mortgage) and where that party paid any and all maintenance and running costs, from funds not earned or acquired during the marriage. Given that one of the three guiding principles of the marriage is the fruits of the marriage, that asset clearly is not such a fruit. This not just relevant to divorce, but to inheritance.
Which brings me onto property ownership. Various assets can be owned in different ways. If an asset is jointly owned, then laws of property ownership can determine rights to that property, never mind divorce law. For instance, whose name is registered on the Land Registry, and is the ownership joint tenancy, or in-common? Are bank accounts joint?
Bear in mind that joint ownership can not only imply benefitting from that property, but being jointly liable for debts.
My point is that even in fairly normal cases, all the implications of the dozen or so issues, and balancing them against each other, can be far more complex than you might think.
And if the legal position is complex, so is the moral position. Perhaps more so, because at least the legal position has the dubious benefit of a long history of guiding precedents.
she "should" get as much as she put into it
A simplistic view, and entirely contrary to rulings from this country's highest court, not least because not everything "put in" can be measured in monetary terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinesePate
Yes indeed it is complex. depends on a lot of factors as you say.
the scenario i am talking about is from a close mate who will go through this divorce.
From what i know, they both are renting in a place together and both have there names as tennants but the wife wants the husband out of course.
The Husband is demanding that if she wants him out for good, she cant expect him to pay the bills for the place he may not live in, else they stay together living in seperate rooms until the tennant agreement contract has been finished.
I think the Husband should stay there if he has to fit the bill whether his missus likes it or not but i would imagine things would have been far worse if they had a mortgage!
They dont have children though so that should ease the process a bit more.
Could the wife afford to live on her own? Not forever, as the couple already agreed to take half each of there savings they had planned to use for a mortgage apparently!
The Husband sounds like he can live at that place and pay for everything on his own as he does earn more then the wife.
But as stated previously, they both have careers they all dreamed of wanting whilst marriage life not affecting there dream careers. This is why i think the wife should not be entitled to half!
As far as i know they both own there own cars, there own person hobby items(the wife seems fond of expensive bags while the Husband loves his Home cinema/entertainment gear) so not sure how they will split that!
Dont think the wife will care about some of his home cinema stuff or the husband wanting to carry a womans bag:P
As you say... sooo many variables to consider and only the couple in question know truly what they deserver and dont.
Make no mistake there are woman and sometimes men, get what they dont deserve from the outcome.
No wonder why many are scared to marry!
It could end real badly effecting the rest of your life or could be the best thing ever that has happened in your life such as you are experience saracm.
But Saracm, You can never tell what will happen tomorrow! Things may be amazing today but all it takes is something dramatic like maybe u asking a divorce(not likely i know) or your missus etc and you are in the dog house!
You really cannot predict these things. cannot predict if a marriage will work or not even if so far it has been amazing.
Its just the way Life is :(
What if she put into saraficing a lush career in x y z in favour of just staying out looking after the kids and doing all the house work?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinesePate
Mind, it is quite rare for that scenario as nowadays the wife HAS to have a career herself and work to sustain decent living for both the husband and the kids.
Unless the husband is earning triple figures, you really need the wife to work on a decent job.
So when the wife has a decent job and so does the husband. i think that your quote makes a bit of sense then and their
For charity, Josh, I perhaps ought to explain a term I used.
When I mentioned "joint tenancy", it didn't mean what you seem to think it meant, which is no surprise because (without thinking about it) I was referring to a legal term (or principle) not the one in common usage.
I wasn't talking about tenancy in the sense of rented property, as per your friends, though that is, clearly, also a tenancy. I was referring to a specific type of property ownership. That is, whether with or without mortgage, the nature if the relationship between two (or more) joint owners.
Suppose you and three mates decide to buy a property together, to get onto the property ladder (which you may already be on, as this is just a "for instance"). You will, in you've any sense, have a conteact that carefully defines who owns what proportion, who has what responsibilities, and how things are to be handled in the event, say, that one wants to sell and the other doesn't.
That might be that each own 25% of the property, or it might be that you own 40% and the other three own 20% each, but you pay 40% of the deposit, pay 40% of the mortgage, get 40% of the sale price .... and get the master bedroom. But, each of you iwn, separately and in your own right, a fixed proportion of the property .... and you can, subject to that agreement, sell it. And, should your shuffle off this mortal coil, your part can be inherited, according to the terms of your will. It will not simply go to the other three. That is called a tenancy in common.
The other type is a joint tenancy, or beneficial joint tenancy. In that, you BOTH own the property, you are both jointly and fully liable for the mortgage. If you traditionally both contribute to the mortgage, be it 50:50, 79:21, 0:100, 100:0, or whatever, you are BOTH 100% luable for it. If either of you defaults, the mortgage company can and will go after either or both of you for 100% of it.
But, you both own 100% of the property, jointly.
As opposed to owning 100% between you, but you owning a fixed percentage (as in the four-way example), which you, independently, can sell, re-mortgage, or whatever.
So, if as part of a marriage, you own a property, it might be :-
- in your SOLE name, with your name ONLY on the Land Registry entry.
- in joint names, as joint tenants (default case with property bought by married couples)
- in joint names, but tenancy in common, where you solely own a fixed percentage.
In that last case, by the way, the Land Registry with have a "Form A Restriction" on the property, which reflects the legal limits to the abilities of individual owners.
Say you own 50% of a house under a tenancy in common. If you die, your 50% goes to whoever your will says (or by intestacy statutes if you don't have one), not whoever happens to own the other 50% .... unless that person is stipulated by your will, ir qualifies under intestacy law.
If you own it with that person (usually spouse) as joint tenancy, you CANNOT bequeath it in your will, as that other person already owns it, 100%, with you.
If you own property jointly like that, in order to dispise of it by yoyr will, you have two options :-
1) Sell it, and split the money, because while the house might be joint tenancy, the sale proceeds aren't .... unless you put them in a joint bank account.
or
2) Draw up (via solicitor, if you're smart) a specific legal document that converts a joint tenancy into a tenancy in common.
And in case you're wondering, yes, I have personally had to do the latter, though not to do with my matrimonial home. And the £150 or so it cost saved about £80,000 in tax that otherwise would have been due.
Anyway, the point I was originally making is that, never mind divorce, the TYPE of ownership will be the starting point for any divorce settlement over the matrimonial home, BECAUSE it determines who has what right in the property. Who has what rights are the starting point for the judge in determining the rest of the settlement.
Most common in marriages, especially in property bought during the marriage, is joint tenancy, but it's not the only type possible.
I know it's some strange concepts, but I hope that makes clearer what I was trying to say.
As for never entirely being able to predict, or be sure of, the future, I entirely agree. The wife and I are very happy and I can't see that changing, but I also can't (unfortunately, at least as far as the lottery is concetned) see the future. It could change. I just don't believe it will, but I guess most divorced people would have said that at some point. We are 25+ years in, and happy, but it going wrong after a long period isn't entirely unprecedented.
I agree, I don't think you have a world of equality with women still assuming some for of predates sexist rules... 50% of divorce, alimony - have no idea why/who invented this, even conscription for example.
I do think its fair if the money was earned by both of them, however I do feel that it should really be at the discretion of the main earner to set the payment, not the entitlement of the other...
Still, not all divorces are the same however so my broad, sweeping statement is fairly useless :(
The woman should get what she bought with her money in my opinion. Unless it's the man that was cheating on her, and they have children.
I personally think that if one of the spouses cheats, they become entitled to nothing, regardless of who was the money earner. But for reality, I'd say 25% is fair.
As far as a mutual divorce I think the money that was earned during the marriage should be split 50/50. Life at home is just as important to work efficiency imo.