Agreed not to sell the house, now he wants to...(15 Posts)
When we agreed to separate, it was on the basis that I can afford to buy him out of the house (valuation - shared debts+remaining mortgage and split the rest).
This works out well for me because I can keep the children safe and at the same school. It's not a huge house.
He would then have a lump sum of equity to save/use as a chunky deposit.
Because he's self employed and not earned anything for years, it'll be a couple of years before he can Get a mortgage. He's asked me to be guarantor on a rental place and pay the first 3 months rent because he wants to leave asap.
Because the children seem to be taking it OK, he's suggested that we'd both get a better deal if we sold the house and split the remains. Firstly, because he's still here, it hasn't fully sunk in with children yet. Secondly, I can't see how this would make either of us more money (but cause plenty of disruption to children, which I don't want to do).
I am the higher earner; he won't be paying maintenance or having the children for more than occasional stays.
I am getting more legal advice, understand that I may have to pay him some maintenance for fixed period until he gets on his feet earning (and I want a clean break consent order for future safety!).
Am I missing anything? Other than the potential of someone coming along and starting a bidding war on the house (which he imagines will happen, but I dont), how would he end up with more than our current plan would give him?
Also, with his self employed business, if it doesn't take off as he anticipates, but chooses not to get employment (the man wouldn't even get a job stacking supermarket shelves when I was pregnant and stressed about money!), surely I can't be expected to finance him for long?
Why would you have to pay him maintenance? He should be paying you if you have the Dc.
The only times I've heard of spousal maintenance are when one partner earns absolute mega bucks, and it doesn't sound like that's the case here.
I'd stand your ground on the house, you buying him out sounds the most sensible plan and I'm sure the courts would agree.
Thanks Stu, I earn a reasonable amount and he has chosen not to. I've tried reasoning that if the genders were reversed what would be fair, but every stay at home mum I've known has a)played with the children not just babysat them and b) done some housework/cooking/shopping, so not exactly matrimonial contribution.
I think he will agree, I just couldn't see what possible benefit there could be and am aware that I'm biased in that I don't want to uproot the children!
He'd get less if you sold as fee's would have to be split.
Has he suddenly realised he will need to buy a bed, sofa etc? Men often don't think about that bit in my experience!!!
No, I've said he can take the bed and sofa!! I just think he's unrealistic about house value and would rather none of us lived here, if he can't
I am in a similar financial position: main breadwinner, barely earning stbx
Our two children are in full time school, one at 6th form the other at Primary.
I have been told that unless he shows that he is trying to earn money (like what most of have to do to live) he will be in a very weak position to ask me to provide for him. I was very worried about this, as he claims he is a SAHD. He does indeed do more childcare, but barely any other child welfare things (dentist, school things, any housework etc).
People tend to just default to "oh well, he'll have to leave and sort himself out", but as you say, it's a simple case of conventional role reversal and the same people would be jumping up and down demanding the man pay the non-working woman.
If the non-working partner can claim they gave up their career to stay at home they might have more of a case, but that's certainly not the situation for us, he's just a free-loading arse. Welcome to the real world matey.
I think you could point out to him that he wouldn't get more as he'd then have to take into account 50% of EA and legal fees etc.
Also that he legally couldn't force you to sell the house because of the DC and because you are offering to buy him out. If he wants the hassle (and cost) of taking it through the courts you may be awarded a larger share and him less!
Lastly you need to remind him in every conversation regarding this that it is the DC best interests to remain in the family home as it provides them stability and he needs to be putting their welfare above £
He needs to get a job before he gets to have any say in anything really.
I eanreed 10x more. We are assuming you are married - there is a vast difference if you are not. In out case my ex got 60% as he wanted 50% of assets and maintenance for life (he does work full time, we both do) and I wanted a clean break. I really would advise that you give him no maintenance even for a few months because if the order is not a clean break and he gets even a nominal csum he can come back and back and back. One lawyer's wife came back after 20 years and the husband had a second wife for 20 years, and the first wife got more money as there had not been a clean break.
On the house issue he cannot make you sell the house. I remortgaged to give my ex his 60% (and by the way as I earned 10x more he does not have to pay towards the children unless they live with him - he doesn't want them to live with him so for higher earners, male or female, yes sometime they pay nothing but you are just relived not to be paying them - a spouse without the children on divorce from a higher earner can indeed often claim spousal support). It is much better for you and the chidlren to stay in the home. If you bought somewhere new you'd have more stamp duty and hassle. My lawyers advised that if my ex would not move out then we could make him once we had the sealed consent order, property transfer to my name and remortgage and once decree absolute was obtained - in that order. My ex only moved out at that point - the house transfer held us up the most by the way.
If possible do not guarantee his rent as it may come back to haunt you although I can see you may need to. Could you not instead have him move in with his parents or else give him a year's rent in advance as an extra lump sum?
Thanks all; yes we are married. House transfer has started; consent order has not (I won't be handing over funds until we are sorted).
I can't afford to give him a year's rent up front, but apparently the issue is that he has negative credit rating so won't get a rental property without guarantor. His parents live about 8 hours away, so not an option for now.
Thanks again, this is all complex stuff!!
Could his parents guarantee his rent? I just worry he will rent and then not pay for 12 months and then you are on the hook for the rent.
Don't think his parents would; MIL has started posting passive aggressive pictures on her FB thread (so hidden her posts). Whatever he signs up for will only be a 6 month one; I'm going to try and ensure that whatever I end up paying for him will constitute part of the settlement, rather than all as lump sum from house.
That sounds like a good idea. Check with a family solicitor if you can that guarantee his rent does NOT amount to on going maintenance such that any "clean break" capital payment/ consent order is not then final and he can come back for a lot more maintenance later. It probably doesn't but I just have a slight concern.
The court would want to see him housed so that he could have the children stay.
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.