to wonder how many people stay in happy marriages because they can't afford to get divorced?

[whatsthecostof]

I am a regular but have namechanged because people in rl don?t currently know what is going on in my life and I don?t want to be recognised. If you recognise me through any detail then please don?t out me.

DH and I are on the verge of divorce. I won?t go into the details, there is fault on both sides though and we?ve got to a point now where realistically there?s no going back.

However, on deciding to split it?s become apparent that realistically we can?t aford to.

Dh earns a decent salary but I am a sahm running my own business, but its future is as yet uncertain. So he currently brings in all the income.

Initially when we talked about divorcing, DH said he would buy me out of the house and that I should be the one to move out as he can afford the mortgage repayments. However, if he gives me half the equity from the house I won?t be entitled to claim any kind of benefits at all which on the surface of it is fair enough but the equity isn?t going to last for ever and I have no idea when I?ll be in a position to be making money from my business.

If I stay in the house dh won?t be able to afford to live close by in order to see ds if he?s making the mortgage repayments, and anyway he wants his half of the equity. If we sell the house we both get our half, but then equally I won?t be entitled to any help?

It?s complicated somewhat by the fact that neither of us can drive (this isn?t something which can be changed) so realistically need to be close to where we are now in order to maintain proximity to school for our ds.

So the only choice we have really is to stay together probably until DS is eighteen.

It?s all a bit of a financial mess really, but I?m thinking I can?t be the only person in this kind of position, and wondered how many people are stuck in unhappy marriages because realistically, they can?t afford to get divorced?

oops that subject heading should read unhappy marriages...

I don't think there's any such thing as "can't afford to split up", only "can't afford to split up and still live in the same way".

If he gives you half the equity from the house them you'll have money to live on while you get your business up and running - where's the problem exactly? You say you won't get any benefits, but you won't need them because you'll have half a house worth of cash. When that runs out you either will have made a success of your business, or you can get a job, or you will then be entitled to benefits because you'll have no money.

I think it happens quite frequently OP, I know three people in situations not a million miles from your own and usually the split occurs when someone meets a new partner and they decide to set up home together x

Maybe that all sounds a bit harsh, but my point is yes you can split up, and if you believe that you shouldn't be together then you should split up.

Of course you can afford to split up but you certainly won't have the same lifestyle as you enjoy now. As a single parent realistically you would probably have to find a job to pay the bills.

have no issue with finding a job. Have been looking though for the past year and realistically jobs are few and far between, especially when you've been a sahm for ten years and what employers want now is relevant experience, hence why I've gone down the own business route.

You need proper legal advice.

YOu are entitled to stay in the family house with the DC until they are 18.

Get thee to a solicitor.

However sounds like you don't really want to split up to me.

I see what Trills us saying, and she's right. However, I still think you've a point, whatsthecostof. It's a definite "factor to take into consideration" when considering divorce that you may be taking, and the rest of the family may be taking, a huge financial hit.

I think you've put your finger on one of the big issues. I strongly suspect that a lot of women (and for various reasons, it will be women) will probably be walking away, knowing that they will effectively be losing "their" equity in the house, over time, and will never be house-owners again.

For what its worth, I think this has a lot to do with the house-prices insanity that grips our generation - I don't think anyone, yet, has really done a thorough analysis as to how this really affects many of us, in many different ways. I'm serious: I think it has truly affected the economic landscape, and thus the political landscape, profoundly.

Going back to your initial point re. divorce, I suspect a lot of people are going to come on here and tell you that you're greedy to complain about having to use that equity for rent, living, etc., and a lot of people are going to get shouty about what they presume to be your unwillingness to join the ranks of those who are either equity-poor or on benefits. And they will have a point. But, here's a thing, I looked at a lot of literature on single parents years and years ago and it really does seem to be statistically true that there is indeed an economic threshold on one side of which it is financially neutral to divorce/separate and on the other side of which it is carnage. And it also seems to be statistically the case that this is a factor that people really do take into account when deciding on what to do: that is, statistically, more couples on the "neutral" side of that threshold do separate, indicating that people may well be taking this neutrality/carnage issue into account.

That said, if your marriage is pants, existentially, emotionally, practically, you would be some kind of crazy not to keep repeating to yourself the fundamental truth that you cannot put a price on human happiness. One life, your life, and all that. Ultimately, houses, equity, etc., it doesn;t really, actually matter if they come as part of a package that sucks the joy from this one, real existence.

good luck with whatever you decide to do.

Sorry, I started writing that before lots of the other posts appeared, so it sounds a bit unrepresentative (especially of what Trills has actually said).

there is no such thing as legal entitlement to stay in the house until the children are eighteen. It would be possible to seek such an order, but realistically this only actually happens as long as the mortgage repayments can be met so it's a bit of a myth really.

I have no issue with living off my share of the equity and I have no desire to live on benefits.. But I will be the one giving up my home when I have been the one who gave up my financial independence ten years ago to become a sahm, while h gets to stay in the house, which incidentally he can sell and get what he paid me back if he chooses, on his decent salary etc.

As someone said above it's just an unfair balance really.

I wasn't married but stayed with ex partner for about 6 years longer than I should have. I was young, scared, had no family near and no way of supporting dd on my own. My only option was a woman's shelter and I just couldn't put dd through that. I bit my lip and soldiered on until one night he assaulted me and the police were called to physically remove him. I haven't laid eyes on him since that night. Should have left years earlier, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Rationally, you can't afford to. But you probably can afford to. But you will have to make a number of changes and they will be frightening. What you really need to do is to speak to a solicitor to see how the assets might be divided up. Forget about DH offering half. Just see what you might end up with. Remember that he might make the decision anyway because you are both already thinking about it. If you have got as far as discussing divorce, you need to see a solicitor.

dh doesn't want solicitors involved. He wants it over by Christmas, apparently you can do it all online, but if you get solicitors involved it will cost thousands.

It doesn't really matter what he wants. He is going to be your ex husband. What matters is that you leave this marriage with enough for you and your child. His wishes are his and a matter for him and his solicitor. Get a solicitor.

Your DH is right, it will cost thousands and if you are splitting relatively amicably at the moment then it is likely to affect that very badly. As you have a DS it would obviously be better to stay on good terms as much as possible. Having said that, it would be sensible to get some initial advice from a solicitor to make sure of what you are entitled to etc. and if you do decide on the DIY route, don't be afraid to stand up for yourself where it matters. Just bear in mind that some solicitors will be happy for you to be arguing as it means more money for them whilst they send out letters etc. Good luck.

nkfSun 02-Sep-12 12:58:05
"It doesn't really matter what he wants."

It matters the same amount as what the OP wants.

What you really need to do is to speak to a solicitor to see how the assets might be divided up. Forget about DH offering half. Just see what you might end up with. Remember that he might make the decision anyway because you are both already thinking about it. If you have got as far as discussing divorce, you need to see a solicitor.

Exactly. And your input into child care over the years needs to be taken into account. I say this as partner to a SAHD. I could not have done my work without adequate child care (ie if DP had died or something awful like that, I would have had to pay for child care) so if we ever split I would expect that his contribution would be considered.

Not having a solicitor could end up costing YOU a fortune. At the very least please stop by the CAB.

I always think of threads like these when I see posters doing childcare calculations (you know the type, "I don't earn enough to cover childcare, or enough to make it worthwhile, so I'll just be a SAHP"). And then ten years later a chunk of that groups husbands are ill, or deceased, or involved in an accident, or the pressure of being the sole breadwinner peaks, or they quite simply fall out of love, or they trade in their wife for a younger model... and here we have posters like this one's OP, who has (essentially) burnt bridges wrt financial independence.

crescentmoon
Because the man doesn't have to find a place to live, run a house and pay maintenance do they?

Have you ever wondered how a single man finds a place to live?

i married for better or worse

sometimes its fabulous, sometimes its shit, mostly its somewhere in between

crescentmoon is right.

Part of the reason for this is the difference in women and men's pay, which is located primarily in differences in income between mothers and fathers.

As countless threads on mn testify, a huge gender gap springs up after children arrive, in the majority of partnerships. Women/mothers tend to be the ones to cut back hours/stop working entirely - partly because there was a pay difference when they had the children, with the male partner earning more.

When/if the divorce happens, the effect of that is that mothers find themselves badly off.

There are other factors, but the above is a biggie. It impacts on how work/childcare can be juggled after a separation.

I think you would be foolish to get an internet divorce just because that is what your STBXH wants.