Not paying child support doesn't see the kids, is100% of the fmh fair compensation(7 Posts)
I know I can't waive child support but he simply doesn't work so I'm not getting any.
He hadn't seen the kids for 6 months prior to me relocating them back to the UK. I have it documented repeatedly that I will be given the fmh and now suddenly after me paying the mortgage for three years single handily he wants the court to decide.
I will stop paying the mortgage if that's his attitude unless it's likely the court will give me the house.
What do you think ?
Married 10 years, I'm having to retrain after a 14 year break raising the 4 children, youngest is 5
there is no way anyone could advise you properly on here without knowing the full details - go and speak to your solicitor - find a specialist family lawyer at Resolution or PM me with a rough idea of where you are and I will try and suggest someone if I know someone
as I suspect you have been advised 100% of the FMH is very very unlikely but can happen ....
Im on income support so legal advice is out of the question, I've been told to stop paying the mortgage, let it get repossessed and then let the court decide whatever money is left which seems a spectular waste of the little capital we have.
Surely 3 years of telling me I can have the house in writing and me paying the mortgage counts for something ?
I agree with you.
You having the DC full time.
Him paying nothing.
You paying the mortgage for three years.
All that is in your favour. Don't give up the house.
Yes what you both paid in up to the point of separation might be considered but what you have done since and what you do in the future is not going to benefit your ex.
Unfortunately in England & Wales agreements carry no weight unless there has been full financial disclosure, both parties took independent legal advice and the agreement is "fair" i.e. complies with s25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and other law. It isn't necessarily true that mortgage payments made during separation won't benefit your husband. It could be said that the person enjoying the sole use of the former matrimonial home pays all the mortgage, their share and the other spouse's share in lieu of paying them rent to occupy their share of the property.
Who advised you to stop paying the mortgage? Not paying the mortgage and the repossession of property is not a good option and best avoided if at all possible. First of all it will affect your credit ratings making it difficult (if not impossible) to secure another mortgage/loans or to rent. Secondly when property is repossessed it can be sold for less than it's value so that once the mortgage is repaid there is considerably less equity left. IF there is negative equity there still remains a liability to pay the debt. SO you could be shooting yourself in the foot by stopping mortgage payments. When someone is having difficulty paying the mortgage it is better to speak to the lender to see if they will grant a payment holiday or change a repayment mortgage to an interest only one.
IF you are on a low income you may be eligible for legal aid for mediation. A good mediator can go through the figures together with you both to see if a way forward can be found that can work for the family. The first step is to identify any assets (including pensions) held in joint and sole names and then assets are shared according to a checklist of factors ins s25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
The priority is the welfare of the children. Their needs and the needs of both spouse usually determines how assets are shared. A larger share of assets in your favour may be justified because you are responsible for housing the children and perhaps have less mortgage raising capacity than your husband. The lack of child maintenance is a factor. One option may be for your husband to stay on the mortgage and maintain an interest in the former matrimonial home in the form of a charge back until the youngest child reaches 18 years of age. The property can then be sold so the equity can be split so each part receives their share.
There is no substitute for legal advice. IF an agreement can be reached you can take it to a family solicitor to draft into a form (a consent order) which is acceptable to the court. Once the draft has been ratified by a judge it dismisses any future claims between spouses and the terms of the agreement are binding and enforceable. However before the courts can make an effective consent order the first part of divorce, the nisi, must be granted.
Without an approved agreement either party can potentially make claims against the other in the future eg if one of you won the lottery or inherited. If the finances are relatively straight forward you can use an online firm but be careful to ensure the divorce settlement is managed by a solicitor.
Thank you for taking the time to reply I really appreciate it.
I guess it has to go in front of a judge then as he point blank refuses to correspond. Mediation is a none stater he isn't even in the country.
I'm tempted to maybe leave it as things stand until I'm in a position to afford legal advice, my worry is though it'll weaken my case as I'll have sorted myself out by then.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.