AIBU re my divorce?

[twinkletweeter]

I know I should post this in legal but I would like a quick response and am at work!! Getting divorced and have agreed how much equity we are each getting from our jointly owned property. Ex moved out 4 years ago, pays maintenance for the children but has not contributed towards the mortgage since he left.

When one of the ?triggers? comes into play where I will have to buy him out he will get his equity at the market value of the property at that time.

I feel this is unfair as I am paying the mortgage alone yet he will profit from this even though he is not contributing.

Is this usual/reasonable? I feel he should get his equity at the value of the property when he stopped contributing 4 years ago.

Am a lawyer, not a matrimonial one but have had a liitle experience of divorce settlements. I think what has been suggested is usual and reasonable - after all his share of the capital in the house will have been tied up without him being able to use it for the period between when he moved out and the eventual sale. Looked at another way, this is a protection for you too - if the value of the property at the time of sale is below its value 4 years ago, under this arrangement he will end up with less than under your alternative.

I would have thought that what would be reasonable is that he should get his share of the value at the time you buy him out, BUT he should repay you for his missing mortgage payments over the past 4 years.

I have absolutely no legal basis for this though. Do you have a divorce lawyer?

If interest rates rise which is highly likely, a property market fall is almost inevitable. It might suit you as its stands.

Is the mortgage in joint names, is it a repayment or interest only. If it is repayment then surely the additional contributions you have paid of the capital cannot be split. Can they?
Other than this is I would expect the rest to be fair, the interest part of your mortgage is for you to live there. Not releasing the funds benefits you especial if the house prices go down.
I am not a lawyer so pure speculation on my part.

Thanks guys :)

I'm on interest only....but if I go back onto repayment it won't affect it will it?

My solicitor is bloody difficult to get hold of and hassling me to sign the consent order.

i personally would say that if he isn't living there why should he pay the mortgage. Would then you give him rent?

I think you will find that mortgages are 'jointly or severally' i.e. you both pay, but if one cannot then the other must.

Prices have dropped in 4 years, so it is to your advantage at the moment.

I don't think you would have a leg to stand on if you tried to get him to repay half the 4 years you have paid while he was not there.

I don't want him to pay the mortgage - I'm just not overly keen on him benfitting from me working my arse off and bringing up our kids with very little positive input and a lot of hassle and critisism from him.

I will have to buy him out in 7 years. But I can see the point of his assets being tied up here - I just don't want to feel likie he is profitting from me paying the lot IYSWIM?

My ex and I have an agreement that he will get his share of the equity based on the value of the house on the day he moved out.

We both agreed that and it was written into the consent order. We had 4 drafts of it in the end as the solicitor (his) kept changing it to what she thought it should be and not what we had agreed

You dont have to sign it until you are happy with it and given that this will affect the rest of you life and potentially cost you thousand of pounds, you need to think it through and be sure before you sign. Perhaps contact another solicitor for a "second opinion" if thats possible? And you can always change solicitors if you want to, you arent bound to this one, although it will probably cost you more.

Sadly I know the answer to this one and you are not going to like it. You are living in a property that is jointly owned, the other party (in this case your husband) cannot "enjoy the rights of his property", i.e. he cannot live there, nor can he release the benefits until the triggers are met. This means that his own remortgageability is reduced by the amount of the current mortgage, and £x 000's of his money are tied up in such a way that he can't use them.

You paying "his" half of the mortgage is considered to be "occupational rent", i.e. you paying him (or usually the mortgage company) rent for "his" half of the property trhat you have use of and he does not.

Thanks TR - so if I go back onto repayment how will that affect me? Will he benefit further?

I think it is fair he gets the value as of when it is finalised. He had to move out of your joint home and he has had to pay for somewhere to stay for him during the last 4 years whilst you were occupying your joint home (yes with your children but that was still partly owned by him) if he had refused to leave he would have legally been entitled to stay in the home as far as I have understood it unless he would have recived a court order to leave. (and not likely if otherwise he is a decent enough fellow)

you decided to part and he moved out giving you BOTH the oppertunity to move on and get things sorted. that is imo how to look at why he gets it at the value things are now. Having said all of that I think you should look into how the property market has changed as I actually think if you insist on him having the half of what it was worth 4 years ago you will need to pay him more than now.

If you go on to repayment then you will start to reduce the capital on your loan/mortgage, this will increase the equity available for both of you. Whether this is the right thing to do depends on your age (sorry) and whether you can afford to pay. You might not wish to benefit him by paying off the capital, but you will have to pay it sometime and the less working years you have left increase the urgency to switch back to repayment.