Re:Men versus women in financial settlement

Hi,

Most of the questions that I see about the post divorce financial settlement and periodic payments relate to women who earn less than their husband. In my case I earn less than my wife, who is a solicitor by the way.

I run a small business that can only afford to pay me about £19,500 net per year but she earns £30,000 net for working 4 days per week. Now that we are divorcing my wife tells me that as a man I have no right to any part of her salary. Can this be right? Sex equality works both ways doesn't it? She will be having our daughter (17 yrs old) living with her and my son (19 yrs) is at uni.

Can you tell me if it is reasonable for the court to give me some of my wife's money otherwise i would not be able to live or afford a two bedroom house for my children to visit.

Thanks

I can verify gender equality does work both ways, I paid SM to my ex-husband. However, SM depends on a discrepancy in incomes and I doubt very much the discrepancy is big enough in your particular case for much, if any, SM.

Hi mjb8126,

Your wife appears to have a quaint idea about the role of men in her life, lol!

She is wrong. Sex, or rather gender, is irrelevant.

Fiona has commented on the likelihood of you getting SM and I respect her and her judgements immensely. I do think that there may be some scope in you pointing out that your wife's future earnings have a higher ceiling than yours may achieve and that therefore should be reflected in the capital division and/or SM.

I fear such an approach would need some specialist input.

Good luck!

YA

Taking a guess at mjb8126's age his wife is going to earn in excess of £100,000 more than him before retirement, and his wife only has to work 4 days a week. Hardly trivial.

Hi,

Thanks for the replies so far. I am 51 and my wife is 53 if that is of much significance? By the way I should have also said that my wife is looking for 50% of the value of my business (valued at about £80k) so I will have to pay her £40k as well. Seems like the cards are stacked against me unless I can get the judge to see the unfairness of it all.
Mike

My reasoning is this. With a son of 19 years of age your wife isn't just starting out on her career. In some areas of law the average high street solicitors pay is £27k-£40k. If she works full time pro rata she will be earning £37.5k or less. Potential income is just one factor taken into account, another factor is the lifestyle and work/child care balance during the relationship.

In this particular case there is one 17 year old and a 19 year old in higher education and it isn't unreasonable for them to be provided with a ­base­ with your wife whilst studying for a first degree. That should be balanced against your need for housing.

SM has to be seen in context of the overall facts and the particular details. The first consideration is whether a clean break can be achieved and just because your wife is looking for a 50% share in your business doesn't mean she will get it.

If she is the higher earner your wife will be able to raise a larger mortgage than you so that justifies a larger share of capital in your favour than would be the case when the parent with care is the lower earner. Because of that you are likely to have a lower mortgage relatively speaking which decreases your need of SM and she will have a higher mortgage decreasing her ability to pay SM.

As I said above ­base­d on the limited information given I doubt there will be enough discrepancy to justify much in the way of SM but as YA said you need independent legal advice about your individual circumstances.