Ok, today we have another very common myth. The ‘I put more money in and I should get more money out’ argument.
While once upon a time the Courts might have listened to this argument, I am pleased to say that we now live in more enlightened times. I certainly don’t want to get political but it is a matter of fact that this argument was, sometimes still is deployed, usually by the Husband, on the basis that they worked hard to win the bread while their Wife took care of the children at home contributing nothing.
Sometimes this argument is also deployed where one party worked for many years while the other couldn’t due to health, or because there was a lifestyle decision made by the couple that one party would stay at home to look after the house.
The Courts no longer consider a party’s contribution to the marriage in purely financial terms and it recognises contributions of different types – for example the Wife at home looking after the children enabling the Husband to go out to work. It also looks at the parties’ needs.
The majority of cases are ‘needs cases’. These are cases where the parties’ combined financial resources are enough to meet the parties’ individual needs or not enough to. The Court then has to consider how to meet the parties’ needs, thinking first of the needs of any children of the family. So you can see that, conversely, it is actually possible that the party who makes less financial contribution could come out with just as much, if not more, of the assets in the divorce, because that is needed to meet their needs.
For more information on the issues raised in this blog please do not hesitate to contact one of the team at Rayden Solicitors.