Recently I met an old client; a lovely woman, now in the mid-60s, a so-called baby boomer. Her divorce was an excellent example of how it can ultimately be resolved optimally for all those involved, with the limitation of adverse financial consequences.
Neither of them wanted to leave the house at the time; they were very attached to it, which I could very well imagine. A lovely and friendly home with a large garden, where they had lived for a long time and had seen their children grow up. And the children – yes, they also thought it necessary to give up their parental home.
So to, that this opened the eyes of the parents for a solution other than to sell, and they both look for another house. The housing costs are usually the most significant cost item in a household. Unless one of the parties starts working (more), two separate households and therefore two homes have to be paid after a divorce from about the same income. This means that people are poorer after a divorce than before.
Statistically speaking, the woman is the poorest. In this case, they found a better solution in their own house: the man went upstairs and the woman downstairs. Each had its entrance and a private terrace in the garden, which the other had no view of. The children were surprised that their parents had done their best for an alternative and had listened to them.
Parents often forget that in a crisis, ask Villa Pinedo. This also applies to older children; they suffer from a divorce. It is not given to everyone to be able to live next to each other, these parents happy. They had become good friends again. My client was still delighted with it.16 September 2019