Separation/Divorce - what happens to house - help?

(11 Posts)
Jobean Thu 06-Sep-12 22:19:39

Hoping someone may be able to help me with this conundrum so I can sleep a little better tonight.

I am seeking a divorce from my H on grounds of his unreasonable behaviour (don't get me started on this one - basically a complete B*****D as are many judging from the other threads I have read.)

My situation is this. I want to stay in the house. This whole thing is going to be traumatic enough without moving my kids out of their beloved home.

I am and have always been the main breadwinner (H wages couldn't even meet half of the mortgage) and have contributed the bulk of the mortgage repaid so far. My kids are both at fee paying schools too and I do not want to pull them out of school either. I want to minimise the effect of this whole thing on them as much as possible. Changing home and schools is not an option.

Basically I can afford the mortgage and school fees without any need for maintenance from soon to be XH. What I cannot afford is to buy him out (equity is about £140k -50% to him £70k impossible).

If I state I do not want maintenance can I keep house without having to buy him out?

Collaborate Fri 07-Sep-12 07:53:04

Assuming you mean child maintenance, you can't oust the jurisdiction of the CSA.

Look at it another way. If a husband earning far more than the wife wanted not to give her even half (earning a lot less than you he might need more than half) I think a court would be hard to persuade.

You would have to justify why he would go without his housing needs met, just so that you wouldn't be forced to move into a cheaper property. Without knowing more about your case, I can't see it being achievable. But it's a very complex area of the law. Find a solicitor on the resolution.org website and get some proper advice.

losingtrust Fri 07-Sep-12 12:47:05

You may need to potentially remortgage to pay him some of the equity/put a charge on the property for his benefit or use other assets such as pension assets/cash but he does have a call on the property although maybe not half depending upon where the children will live. The judge would not want to disrupt the children but it depends on the circumstances.

ZingelbertBimbledack Mon 10-Sep-12 13:40:27

Jobean, I am in the same situation. I haven't actually left or split yet but I'm researching. I have contributed more to the house (most of it in fact) and I have supported dh who hasn't earned much. I'm going to get a free 30 min consultation with a solicitor this week to see where I stand because if we split, I would want to stay in the house but I cna't afford to buy him out. If I find out anything of interest I will let you know. And I'll be watching this thread with interest.

I know what you mean - I don't want to disrupt my kids any more than is necessary. It will be hard enough for them as it is (they are 8 and 9 btw).

theliverpoolone Tue 25-Sep-12 13:42:46

Has anyone found out anything further on this? - I'm interested to hear more...

Gigondas Tue 25-Sep-12 13:45:30

It's complex area but I think sometimes it is possible to delay sale of house until children are of age (think its called a mesher order?).

I am not sure what position would be on spousal support in your situation either - you do probably need to speak to a solicitor.

Viking1 Tue 25-Sep-12 19:00:22

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Collaborate Wed 26-Sep-12 09:40:05

Still can't see it happening. And I've been advising clients on this for 20 years. Is that really the only house in the area that the kids can live in? H is the financially disadvantaged party. Courts are unlikely IME to allow the higher earning party to keep the house on if there is a viable and cheaper alternative to move to, but magnify that ten-fold where the person remaining in the house is the higher earner (especially by the degree inplied in the OP). Courts recognise it's important to the children that the other parent is appropriately housed too. After all, they will be spending some of their time with him too.

Also it's a myth that you'll get more than 50% just because you have the kids living with you.

duffybeatmetoit Sat 06-Oct-12 23:04:35

I'm in similar boat. Married 4 years everything in my name but I have paid all the bills with no contributions from xH (he was always promising to but never did other than paying some of the food bill). His income for the last 6 years (although less than mine) has basically been frittered away on his hobbies/credit cards and a partial contribution to food costs. DD lives with me and he lives with his parents a couple of hundred miles away. Occasionally sends money for DD.

It seems totally unfair that he should expect to receive any share of the house or get me to downsize to provide him with more money that will just get frittered away and not get spent on alternative accommodation. I am expected to house him and his family on their occasional visits and DD stays with inlaws if visiting them.

Collaborate Sun 07-Oct-12 09:43:31

The origins of the capital in the house are relevant. If it was in your name before you met then his claim against it is much weaker, particularly with a short marriage.

duffybeatmetoit Sun 07-Oct-12 21:06:29

Sorry to hi-jack thread. He originally moved into my house without contributing to it. We moved 2 years ago and I paid the deposit out of the equity in the old house. Mortgage taken out in my name alone, based solely on my earnings. Didn't know whether he would get work in new location and didn't want to overstretch finances.

If I have to give him money I would be forced into selling up and moving into different school catchment area as there is nothing cheap enough locally to buy with reduced equity. DD only 5 so doubt he'd be made to wait until she was 18 to receive his unearned windfall.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now