House in sole name but married

[Bluebell9]

My DSis is planning to leave her husband. He is EA and she is finally seeing it for what it is and realising its not all her fault.

She owned a house before they met, she sold the house bought the family home before they married. She is the sole name on the mortgage and land registry as he probably wouldn't be able to get a mortgage due to bad credit.

They have a 1 DC who is primary age and my DSis has an older child too.

My DSis works shifts and her H is self employed so they both do school pick ups/drop offs, but on balance my DSis does more of the childcare. Before DC was at school, they had a childminder to cover when my Dsis was working.

My DSis is the higher earner, she pays all the mortgage and bills etc.
She also bails out H business when it has 'cash flow issues'.

I've advised seeing a solicitor but she's still coming to terms with ending her marriage.

Does anyone have an idea of where she stands with the house when they split?

[SpringerLink]

From the advice I got last week over a similar situation, you’re sister should be prepared to accept that 50% of all assets belong to her and 50% to her husband. It could vary, but even if you are the main earner and the main care-giver, a 60/40 split is about the best I was told to hope for.

[waterSpider]

The idea of a 50/50 asset split is given greater weight if the marriage (possibly the whole relationship) is relatively "long" rather than of short duration. Sadly no-one really has a consistent definition of when short becomes long. Since there is a primary age child, presumably any relationship is relatively long.

Yes that ratio (like 50/50) is then varied according to the needs of children, in particular, and sometimes by other factors including who brought in the money - but in a longer marriage the point about who brought in what tends to be quite secondary.

'sole names' on things don't matter in a long marriage -- though they would be very important if unmarried

He needs to find somewhere to live, and if he is to have some kind of overnight stays of their child that may need to be a 2-bed place -- if the total funds allow. That needn't be owned, could be rented.

Other relevant assets beyond the house might be workplace pensions, savings, and debts.

To some observers, courts tend to favour the weaker partner when splitting assets (often the woman, but certainly not always - perhaps as here).

Also factor in legal costs. 50/50 may not sound right (and may not be right or appropriate), but how much of the joint funds do you want to spend on lawyers to prove the point? (i.e. if she can agree a figure to "pay him off" that may be sensible).

[waterSpider]

On the other hand, a lot can depend on precise details. If there isn't much spare money, the priority could be to keep the children housed in their current home. In which case the husband may get rather less, or be forced to wait to get any equity until the children are much older. It may also depend on what people are willing to accept, which can be different to what lawyers think they would get at court. Some people (husbands) may prefer cash now rather than more at a much later date, so there is scope for negotiation and/or mediation. (I also assume this is England or Wales).

[Ilovecrumpets]

I have a not dissimilar situation main earner and do the clear majority of childcare. Was also advised most likely 50/50 asset split at best 60/40. As others note each situation is different though.