Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

What do you think about divorce settlements?

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    why does it matter whether one partner leaves for a youger model? Should teir future behaviour effect the settlement?

    Well really I don't know if it does but since someone mentioned it (and why mention it unless it was supporting the fact that an award should be given) I thought I'd reverse the situation a bit.

    But having said that, I do think it matters to an extent. If you are in a happy relationship and through no fault of your own have that torn from you and then have to provide for yourself, is that fair? Whilst they go and enjoy everything you helped them build up?

    On the other hand, if you chose to leave, well, why should you be entitled to as significant reparations? Anyway, that's besides the point. It's when lawyers want a bigger cut and so chase people down for every penny because the law says they are entitled to such and such even if the client is happy with a lesser amount. Just seems like greed sometimes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I had an old housemate who attempted suicide in 2003. It was due to a split from his wife - The housemate paid for their house himself, but because the lady had children, she gets the keep the house entirely. The man goes away with nothing.

    A colleague of mine had a split back in the 1990's. His house mortgage was paid off and that got split 50/50 in the divorce deal. However, the colleague's pension also got split 50/50. The partner didn't have a job nor children. While I agree that the lady should have taken a percentage of the house's value, I don't agree that his pension should have also been split. The lady should have worked up her own pension. There just seem to be too much favour to one side even when children isn't involved.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Monserrat wrote: »
    I had an old housemate who attempted suicide in 2003. It was due to a split from his wife - The housemate paid for their house himself, but because the lady had children, she gets the keep the house entirely. The man goes away with nothing.

    A colleague of mine had a split back in the 1990's. His house mortgage was paid off and that got split 50/50 in the divorce deal. However, the colleague's pension also got split 50/50. The partner didn't have a job nor children. While I agree that the lady should have taken a percentage of the house's value, I don't agree that his pension should have also been split. The lady should have worked up her own pension. There just seem to be too much favour to one side even when children isn't involved.

    I don't agree with either of these things - in the first one, the man should've got something. In the second one I don't agree with her getting half his pension. Why should she?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    You're the only person who has said in this thread "just a housewife" so I'm not sure who you're quoting MoK ;).

    It was part of the defence used by the man in the original story...

    I don't understand why there is a definate 50 / 50 split without establishing any basis of need or for want of a better word, what's deserved.

    There is. Is this instance it wasn't 50/50, she only ended up with £48m from an family estate of £131m. Usually, where kids are involved, the father still has to pay for their upkeep on top of the settlement to his wife.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Monserrat wrote: »
    However, the colleague's pension also got split 50/50. The partner didn't have a job nor children. While I agree that the lady should have taken a percentage of the house's value, I don't agree that his pension should have also been split. The lady should have worked up her own pension. There just seem to be too much favour to one side even when children isn't involved.

    From what you say there we are talking about a single income marriage. So how could she have worked up her own pension?

    Perhaps it's worth considering that his pension was their future. Now he has gone, she wouldn't have had much of a future...?
Sign In or Register to comment.