Split of assets on divorce

[Samson]

It is top of the news in the UK today, so I thought I would start a thread here. A couple of women have won divorce settlements at the house of lords, as I understand it, mostly from the bbc;

Melissa Miller can keep the £5m she was awarded out of her ex-husband Alan's £17.5m fortune. There were married for two years and nine months and had no children when they split. A judge had decided Mrs Miller was entitled to a substantial settlement because she married with "reasonable expectation" of a future wealthy lifestyle. Previous lower courts had said that his conduct was an issue (he slept with some other woman) but this court has ruled that it was not right to take this into account.

Julia McFarlane is entitled to £250,000 a year from her ex-husband Kenneth for life - not just the five years decided by the Court of Appeal. Mrs McFarlane had argued she gave up a high-earning career (to bring up children) when she married 18 years earlier.

I think the first case is terrible. Why should her expectations of her standard of living have any bearing here?

The second case is a bit more explicable, because she did the bring uop of the children. But 1/4 of a million pounds a just excessive. What sort of a job did she give up? And I am sure that given the choice most people would rather look after children for 18 years than go to work for someone else. There is definatly an ellement of choice here, if she could have been earning 250,000 I am sure she could have afforded child care.

It really seems that women get the best deal out of this. If you do not get married she gets the children. If you do get married and end up splitting she almost allways get the children, gets half of everything in the marrige (even if it was all his before, say a house he inherited) and can also make a demand on his future earning. You cannot solve it with a pre-nuptual agreement as they apparently have no legal standing in this country (the UK). Note it amkes no difference who broke up the marrige or cheated or whatever.

Only somewhat related, I think it unfair that women get 6 months paid maternaty leave (and another 6 months where they can go back to their jobs). Men only get 2 weeks. I guiess this contributes to the problem, as it makes it much easier for the woman to do the childcare, even if she is earning more.

There are lots of cross men on the bbc comments page.

 

[Atropos]

The maternity leave point doesn't bother me, since childbirth has a physical impact on women which it can't have on men, but divorce settlements do seem a bit wierd. In the modern world, the idea that it is impossible for women to get a job but must be dependent on alimony forever seems a bit strange. Also, property which one person brings to a marriage should be theirs going out of it, male or female.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is definatly an ellement of choice here, if she could have been earning 250,000 I am sure she could have afforded child care.

It's not only that though - you have no idea how much she contributed to the earning power of her husband. He's highly successful, and very likely she was part of that success - discussing work at the end of the day, being supportive when she was low, etc. They were partners, and as such, they're entitled to the fruits of their joint effort.

So it's not that she was worth the full quarter million in the work force, but that she was worth something in the work force AND she was worth something to him.

 

[Samson]

The maternity leave point doesn't bother me, since childbirth has a physical impact on women which it can't have on men

I agree, but that does not take 6 months to get over for most people. I think 8 weeks garanteed or something, and then some sort of way in which the parents can choose who gets the rest of the time.

 

[Atropos]

It's not only that though - you have no idea how much she contributed to the earning power of her husband. He's highly successful, and very likely she was part of that success - discussing work at the end of the day, being supportive when she was low, etc. They were partners, and as such, they're entitled to the fruits of their joint effort.

So it's not that she was worth the full quarter million in the work force, but that she was worth something in the work force AND she was worth something to him.

While they were married, they presumably shared the proceeds of the partnership. If they're divorcing, then she's no longer providing that "service," so why should she be paid for it?

 

[El_Machinae]

That's a good question - he's likely on Salary (or has a huge customer base) that he gained while she supported him. He's still gaining the fruits of her labour (the larger salary), so she still deserves a piece. In other words, she helped him build his empire, it's part hers.

 

[Atropos]

That's a good question - he's likely on Salary (or has a huge customer base) that he gained while she supported him. He's still gaining the fruits of her labour (the larger salary), so she still deserves a piece. In other words, she helped him build his empire, it's part hers.

It still seems to be a rather tenuous basis for somone to get a legally enforceable quarter of a million. Is there any actual proof that he could not have built the "empire" in her absence? Because, if not, his charwoman could just as well say that he couldn't have done it without clean sheets to sleep in.

 

[El_Machinae]

Because, if not, his charwoman could just as well say that he couldn't have done it without clean sheets to sleep in.

Good analogy, and so I'm forced to get a specific rebuttal. A char woman is on contract to provide a service. A marriage, on the other hand, is a contract to become a team and work to improve each other's lives. They are deemed to have worked together.

By comparison, suppose two people start a business and each get equal stock in the business (the salesman and the secretary). While she's working, she draws a salary and she gets dividends from her stock. If they agree that she should quit, she loses her salary, but she retains the stock, right? And, as a result, she gets half the dividends. Why? Because she owns half the company.

He would get half her assets too, if she had any. As well, if she makes big money in the future, he can ask for a resizing of the alimony.

People should use this case to think long and hard about whether they should get married or whether there should be pre-nup. Because not understanding why the courts rule this way doesn't change the fact that they will.

 

[Samson]

It's not only that though - you have no idea how much she contributed to the earning power of her husband. He's highly successful, and very likely she was part of that success - discussing work at the end of the day, being supportive when she was low, etc. They were partners, and as such, they're entitled to the fruits of their joint effort.

So it's not that she was worth the full quarter million in the work force, but that she was worth something in the work force AND she was worth something to him.

I guess the thing is I do not know what factors are taken into account when considering these things. However, I shall make a few points;

It seems to me that keeeping a significant other on the go is a drain on mental resorces rather than a gain.
"she was worth something in the work force" but choose to withhold that value for the sake of spending time with her children
"she was worth something to him" but who can quantify this? Can you imagine someone making this decision for you?
You are including his future earning in the fruits of their joint effort. What if he gets layed off?

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Everyone should get what they owned. It is unfair when a bimbo marries a rich guy and leaves him and takes generations of work with her.

 

[Samson]

People should use this case to think long and hard about whether they should get married or whether there should be pre-nup. Because not understanding why the courts rule this way doesn't change the fact that they will.

I do agree with you, ubt in the UK at least these other options have there own problems. If you do not get married you are likely to have no clain on the children, which in my opinion are likely to be the "asset" of greatest value. Pre-nuptual agreements have no legal standing. A judge can consider them, but he can also completly ignore it.

 

[warpus]

Meh..

This just proves to me that if I'm ever rich enough to be a millionaire - that I should never get married.

 

[Samson]

Meh..

This just proves to me that if I'm ever rich enough to be a millionaire - that I should never get married.

The thing is these decisions generate precident that will be apllied when us mere mortals get to the courts, so everyone should be aware of the situation.

 

[warpus]

True true..

If you don't marry someone but you live long enough with her - here in Canada you'd be automatically considered a common-law couple.

I wonder - would she still be able to take half your stuff if you broke up?

 

[IglooDame]

Pre-nups not valid in the UK?

There's a pretty serious question that arises, then - if the woman brings, say £15K of earning power into a marriage, and the man brings £500K, then it is rather unfair five years later for the woman to be entitled to half of £600K (she becoming a stay-at-home mom, he got a £100K raise). I do agree that unemployed married women DO have economic value and should reap the rewards of their efforts, but it isn't like they were both dead-even coming into it, so why should they be dead-even coming out of it?

Perhaps she should get half of whatever his raises were over the period of the marriage on an ongoing basis, plus a percentage of the assets reflecting what her percentage of the assets were when they got married. To me that would be more fair, though the words 'fair' and 'divorce' shouldn't ordinarily be uttered in the same sentence.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I think we are being a bit quick to judge here. McFarlane especially gave up her high earning job to look after the children whilst her husband went off to earn the money. It's not a matter of "not having clean sheets", its a matter of two people being in a partnership.

 

[Atropos]

Good analogy, and so I'm forced to get a specific rebuttal. A char woman is on contract to provide a service. A marriage, on the other hand, is a contract to become a team and work to improve each other's lives. They are deemed to have worked together.

By comparison, suppose two people start a business and each get equal stock in the business (the salesman and the secretary). While she's working, she draws a salary and she gets dividends from her stock. If they agree that she should quit, she loses her salary, but she retains the stock, right? And, as a result, she gets half the dividends. Why? Because she owns half the company.

What is the "company" in this analogy? The man's career, since it is what produces income. It seems to me that both are not making equal contributions to this career - the man is obviously more interested in his own career. The wife does not gain a right to half her husband's career at marriage - she has presumably not made an economic contribution to start-up costs as the secretary in you example has (or she wouldn't own half the stock). Moreover, there is no particular reason to believe that the man's career and his marriage begin at the same time or proceed in tandem. It seems to me that you are simply pushing the issue back one stage further - what stock can the secretary be shown to have bought, i.e. what investment has she made in her husband's career?

He would get half her assets too, if she had any. As well, if she makes big money in the future, he can ask for a resizing of the alimony.

If she should happen to earn more money than he does, why shouldn't she pay HIM alimony?

I might add that your point about alimony resizing disproves the idea that alimony is payment for services rendered, since, if it were, the wife's economic circumstances, then or later, would be irrelevant.

 

[El_Machinae]

Perhaps she should get half of whatever his raises were over the period of the marriage on an ongoing basis, plus a percentage of the assets reflecting what her percentage of the assets were when they got married.

This seems decent, actually, though strange.

In some cases (where the raises were neglible), you'd get a ex-wife not getting any support AND having no resume.

 

[El_Machinae]

If she should happen to earn more money than he does, why shouldn't she pay HIM alimony?

She would. Maybe.

The point is that they have equal share in their joint efforts. The resizing is due to the fact that the numbers of their joint effort have changed.

The wife does not gain a right to half her husband's career at marriage

This is why she doesn't get half his salary, but a portion of it

Edit: sorry for the edits - didn't want to multi-post.

 

[bhsup]

I've never been married, so take that into account when judging what I'm about to write.

As far as I'm concerned, when you marry, everything belongs to both parties. That's what marriage is supposed to be, the complete and utter sharing of everything in your lives, be it emotional, physical, material, spiritual, and so forth. Given that, if the marriage goes belly up, everything should be split up 50/50 since from the moment of marriage it was an equal partnership.