He’s not only a heel…he’s a deluded heel if he thinks any judge in the world would call 3 months support an equitable support payment for a 20 year marriage. It ain’t gonna happen. She may have to go back to school to learn how to be a wage earner. She may be awarded maintenance and part of his retirement savings.
I didn’t think that this was implied in the OP, that this was the totality of the support that she was to receive. I assume, in my earlier vote of “reasonable response with caveats”, that she was also going to get half of the joint assets.
Personally I’m not a fan of “maintenance” - in these enlightened days of “liberation”, why can’t both halves of a divorced couple stand on their own feet?
Again, we can’t sum up 20 years of marriage in a single posting and assume we know he’s being a heel. Maybe it was loveless or she’s a harpy or withheld sex or was having an affair of her own. Take the known affair out of it and answer the question, IMO.
Fine, take the big boobies, and the affair out of it. What are you left with?
20 yrs of marriage and a child + 3 months notice to become self supporting = heel.
You can dress it up anyway you want. After twenty years and a child your spouse turns up and gives you 90 days to ‘sort yourself out’, then you’re on your own financially?
Doesn’t matter if there is an affair, if she’s hot, younger, older, married or single.
I hope his wife goes out and gets herself a rabid divorce attorney and puts the bugger in the poor house, takes so many of his assets that the new girl loses interest and dumps his ass.
Belrix - You may not be a fan of spousal maintenance, but don’t you feel that the spouse is owed 1/2 the asset gained during the marriage? Therefore she’d have half the son’s successful business. He’s trying to shed himself of her with three months of income, it sounds like to me.
I’d vote for heel and cad.
StG
He’s in the UK, remember, although if anything England-and-Wales divorce law is more generous to a non-working spouse, IIRC, especially since he’s cheating.
Without knowing whether the two of them had tried to save the marriage or not, it’s hard to say how much of a heel he is, but as far as what we know, it’s the perfect word for him. If the guy isn’t willing to accept that divorce isn’t just a breakup, he shouldn’t have gotten married in the first place.
If you stand up in front of your friends and family and swear to stay with someone for the rest of your life, then hang out for 20 years while your spouse’s youthful looks and fertile period are spent with you, then trade to a bigger-boobed model, THEN try to screw the spouse out of her rightful half of your assets, a heel is the nicest thing I’d call you.
I said in my second posting that I assumed she’d get half of their joint assets - and I support that.
Heck, in my recent divorce I got half of the assets and two-thirds of the debt in my attempt to be fair (since I make the greater income). The assets were half of our overdrawn checking account while the debts totaled nearly $40k. I did, however, expect her to live on the income that she earned after the divorce (she initiated) plus the rather generous $10k per year I pay in child support.
According to the OP’s other thread, the soon-to-be-ex-wife is a working nurse - she’s employed. There’s a child, yes, but she’s an adult living in Australia. She’s out of the monetary picture.
“Fair” to me is to divide the marital assets & debts, including a reasonable cut of the business’s expected future earnings (either as a buy-out amount or a cut of future business) and a short period of “getting started” assistance (since he’s the one blindsiding her - call it the “heel charge”). After that, everybody walks away and lives on their own incomes.
I agree with you on the maintenance thing. However, if the agreement in the marriage was that she not work (as has been the case in many marriages, even in these liberated times), then he’s sunk. Also, working or not, if she can’t support herself reasonably (like my friend who works at blockbuster and will never have the skills to earn more than that), they have to pitch in. That’s the downside of a marriage contract. I imagine if my husband and I were to divorce, I would pay a monthly something to him as well.
His offer of three months this ‘n’ that should be regarded as his initial offer. No successful businessman would offer his final price right off the bat. If his soon-to-be-ex hasn’t even retained a lawyer, his first offer is meaningless.
As someone else pointed out, there are a thousand things we don’t know about these people. We’re a long way from knowing who’s a heel in this picture.