Divorce lawyer who understands contractors

[d000hg]

If there's no kids involved, I suggest emigrating.

Always seemed the cheaper option to me...

If there were no kids why would there be an onus on him to pay so much? Isn't the basic tenet that you pay because the wife gave up work to support kids?

[mudskipper]

If there's no children, then why on earth should she be entitled to anything other than what she has put in financially?

If you have bought a house jointly then the only thing she should be entitled to is half the proceeds from the sale.

As for any of your income, has she done anything to contribute to your business?

Than again when I divorced there were no solicitors involved, just split the proceeds of the house, filled in a few forms and that was it.

But we don't know the exact ins and outs of what has contributed to it all falling apart and why she's demanding so much and also if there are kids involved.

Good luck in finding a good solicitor who sees reason.

Marriage is a partnership - you're in it together, and you should come out of it equal regardless of who has contributed what.

e.g. some men don't want their wives to work, by mutual agreement she does the traditional housewife role. Are you saying she should be homeless and destitute when he decides to move on to a younger model? Not suggesting this is OP's situation - just a hypothetical example!

[AtW]

Marriage is a partnership - you're in it together, and you should come out of it equal regardless of who has contributed what.

That's b0ll0x.

Support for kids - for sure, also cover lost salary due to wife having to support kids - not a problem.

But why should wife or husband be entitled to 50% of earned money/assets prior to marriage? Or even after if the other half did not directly contribute to it.

"Marriage is a contract that must include break up clauses" (c) ATW.

[mudskipper]

That's b0ll0x.
But why should wife or husband be entitled to 50% of earned money/assets prior to marriage? Or even after if the other half did not directly contribute to it.

Because it's a partnership. There's more to marriage than earning money.

(I agree, to some extent, about assets prior to marriage if the marriage is very short).

[AtW]

Because it's a partnership.

Partnership is not the same as "wealth transfer" - you can enter partnership (say LLP) with some stake, even equal and your wife/husband can do the same, however being in that partnership does not mean your existing or any future side stuff gets shared.

Paying for home, food, fuel, shared cars, raising kids - all fine 50/50 split (unless agreed otherwise), however other separate stuff should not be shared by default.

Now if the other half dies then (unless there is a will to say otherwise) it might be acceptable to pass wealth to partner, however it is totally illogical to do it in divorce - unless that wealth was earned together, say same business was run together - a hotel, or pub - that's fair enough.

[Fishface]

I have never clearly understood - is it all assets from both parties divided equally? Or just those aquired whilst married?

And is the responsibility debt divided equally also? Regardless of who took it on?

[Moscow Mule]

Partnership is not the same as "wealth transfer" - you can enter partnership (say LLP) with some stake, even equal and your wife/husband can do the same, however being in that partnership does not mean your existing or any future side stuff gets shared.

Paying for home, food, fuel, shared cars, raising kids - all fine 50/50 split (unless agreed otherwise), however other separate stuff should not be shared by default.

Now if the other half dies then (unless there is a will to say otherwise) it might be acceptable to pass wealth to partner, however it is totally illogical to do it in divorce - unless that wealth was earned together, say same business was run together - a hotel, or pub - that's fair enough.

Oh AtW, you're such a romantic!

[Moscow Mule]

I have never clearly understood - is it all assets from both parties divided equally? Or just those aquired whilst married?

And is the responsibility debt divided equally also? Regardless of who took it on?

With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

After this, you're no longer two individuals, but one couple. The concept of individual ownership does not exist.

[hyperD]

After this, you're no longer two individuals, but one couple. The concept of individual ownership does not exist.

WHS.

Everything is pooled in and divided 50:50. So if you sold your flat to pay for the deposit in your house before the marriage, you cannot ask for that to be exempt from the "pot".

The only thing you could claim back if you have proof that monies were being transferred from the household accounts to a third party for example, but unless you are Paul McCartney, it's not worth the barrister fees.

Behaviour is also not a consideration in divorce hearings either, hence the oft used expression "it's not fair" being bandied about the whole time.

To be honest, if people knew the state of the marital laws in this country, only the niave would marry.

[Paddy]

After this, you're no longer two individuals, but one couple. The concept of individual ownership does not exist.

There used to be “promise to love honour and obey”.

Not only obey went out the window but also honour.

The Law in the UK is out of date and favours women.

Eg. In a marriage, regardless of children a wife has a choice of not working and staying at home, having a career or even a hobby job or hobby loss making business. The man is expected to work. If he does not work; the wife can divorce him for neglect.

In divorce, the wife is advised not to work and to claim from her husband for the rest of her life even if there has been a 50/50 split.

One of my sisters has never done a day’s work in her life but after going through two husbands; she has a very nice house and income for the rest of her life. Her ex-husband has nothing.