pompeygazza wrote:The house hasn't risen a lot, maybe 10k at a push
Looking at the figures it seems she's contributed little or nothing. Although the normal presumption is that the marital home is owned in equal shares this is a short marriage, and that presumption might well therefore be displaced.
Although there would appear to be around £60k equity in the house that equity has been provided in its entirety by your brother. Although you say the property's increased in value by £10k that would be wholly accounted for by the £10k your brother spent doing it up. In other words the house hasn't increased in value at all.
I would therefore say to her that because it was such a short marriage the court's inclination would be to put them both back into the situation they were at the beginning of the marriage, other than in respect of assets accrued during the marriage. And although the inheritance accrued during the marriage I would argue that because of the short marriage and the fact that she left only a year after he inherited the money it should be treated as his personal asset, not one that should be divided.
I would therefore argue that because she contributed nothing there is nothing to be divided, and that she’s actually done quite well to get the car and the £5k in cash out of the marriage.
This is admittedly a hard line approach, but the intention would be to diminish her expectations, and soften her up for a settlement offer. And realistically a court would probably award her something. In particular, a generous judge might view the £35k equity arising from the inheritance to be jointly owned simply because it did arrive during the marriage, giving her around £18k, maybe rounding it up to £20k.
My inclination would therefore be to offer her £15k on the basis that if she won't accept it he could `reluctantly' concede a settlement at £20k.
One asset that's not been mentioned, but which should, for the sake of completion, be taken into account is that of pension provision. Again, because it is such a short marriage it's unlikely to be of much significance, but if they are to obtain a consent order disposing of financial claims they will both need to disclose their respective pension provision anyway.
A spouse can quite often have substantial pension provision without realising it, and the sudden appearance of a pension fund worth even £50k or so can be disruptive to negotiations where there are few other assets involved, so it's much better to deal with it now rather than have it disclosed just at the point of signing off the settlement and have it derail the process.
One important tactical point to bear in mind is that legal aid is no longer available for divorce proceedings, so this will severely restrict her ability to negotiate. If she does go to a solicitor she will be told that their bill will have to be paid out of whatever settlement is agreed, and with such small sums involved any increase that's negotiated could well be wiped out by legal costs, making it a pointless exercise.
However, it's important for your brother to be in a position to pay up immediately once a settlement’s agreed. From what you say she's probably eager to receive the cash, and an offer of £15k in the hand now may well be more attractive than the prospect of having to wait a long time for a larger sum.
If he can’t immediately raise the money on a mortgage it might be worth you offering to lend him the cash if you’re able to do so in order that he can get the deal done and then repay you later once he's got his mortgage sorted out.
Whatever deal is eventually done it's
essential that it's formally recorded so as to be legally binding. The best solution is a consent order obtained through the court, but that can only be done in the context of divorce proceedings, so if they are going to wait 2 years the alternative is a formal separation agreement. This can be prepared by his solicitor, though she would have to be recommended to obtain independent advice before signing it.
Although the costs are often borne equally it might be sensible for your brother to offer to pay the whole of the bill as an incentive for her to get signed up.
They're both waiting to get a divorce on the two year separation grounds as they think it's cheaper, can anyone advise on this too?
The cost of the divorce itself is the same whatever the grounds. However, I usually advise against waiting if it can be avoided. As mentioned above, such a wait precludes dealing with the settlement by way of a consent order, and as such an order should still be obtained after the actual divorce it means duplication of effort and therefore cost. In any event, it's silly to remain married when the relationship is clearly dead.
The best way of avoiding the wait is for one of them to petition on the grounds of the other's adultery. It's not necessary to name the third party, so if either of them is now in another relationship this ground can be used.