Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Splitting house proceeds- would this be unreasonable?

29 replies

FetchezLaVache · 18/09/2013 19:10

Unashamedly posting here, probably inappropriately, to get greater traffic.

Dsis and DBIL's best friends, X and Y, are splitting up after a long marriage (over 25 years). X has always been the main breadwinner, working in London through the week and coming home on weekends. Because of this, Y got a job in a local school when the kids came along (previous career would have been completely out of the question due to long hours, frequent business trips etc).

Several years ago, there were signs that X was having an affair – nothing major, just things like a work colleague phoning the house when Y was supposed to be out and being unable to account convincingly for needing to speak to X on a weekend. X naturally denied any wrongdoing.

Two years ago, when the youngest child went to university, X left Y and predictably turned out to have been shagging the above colleague, who was also married, for over six years. They've now both left their respective spouses and bought a house to renovate together.

The family home (no mortgage) has been on the market since the following spring, so about 18 months. X has continued to pay half the bills and council tax despite no longer living there. They've just had an offer of about 20% less than the asking price, which X is pushing Y to accept (desperately needing funds to chuck at the new house and keen to be rid of the millstone of paying expenses for family home). Y is not too happy about this, as 50% of the proceeds will just about buy a small house and leave almost nowt for a rainy day, and even less happy that if X had come clean at the start of the affair, they would have been selling at the top of the market and Y would have most likely had a small nest egg. Would Y be unreasonable to push for, say, a 55% share of the proceeds? Or would you just suck it up and move on?

OP posts:

Mollywashup · 18/09/2013 19:15

No way i would take him to the cleaners

expatinscotland · 18/09/2013 19:22

I would not suck it up and move on, or do anything in a rush, and get a very good solicitor.

northernlurker · 18/09/2013 19:25

I bet X wants them to sell! No - X needs to take in to account that Y's career was sacrificed for the family. They can sell at that price but not split 50/50.

SuperStrength · 18/09/2013 19:28

Depends on how realistic the price is that it's on for. If it's over priced in the first place then no it's not fair to ask for more. If it is on for an achievable price, then dropping the value to get a quick sale isn't fair.
The fact it's been on the market for so long speaks for itself. Sounds like it's been over priced.

Original poster

FetchezLaVache · 18/09/2013 19:44

The sale price is completely realistic in this market, but the asking price would have been entirely achievable before the property market went to shite. That's Y's argument, really- that that's the market they would have been selling in had X 'fessed up about the affair when it started.

Probably not an argument that would stand up in court, mind you.

OP posts:

Tabliope · 18/09/2013 19:47

I think X should take the 20% hit to his/her share (not clear if X is the male and Y the female). Y in a good position to stall for as long as he/she wants. Maybe Y can agree on 60:40 to Y and Y meets all costs. Play hardball would be my advice.

cardibach · 18/09/2013 19:52

If it's been on the market for 18 months it is probably overprices, so X should either accept and take the 50%, or drop the price to nearer the offer they have and try again for a bit.

PorkPieandPickle · 18/09/2013 19:56

If x has continued to pay half of the bills and council tax, after the youngest child has left home, x is being fairly decent to continue to help y meet the household costs. I don't really see that y should get a larger share of the proceeds because x left the marriage- there could be lots of other factors involved in a marriage breakdown than the affair.

X and y should split 50/50, and the sooner the better for both of them really, surely? It will allow them both closure, and the ability to start again. I only think Y should get more if x wasn't helping with the ongoing bills or there were still children at home.

Whether 20% is reasonable depends on the asking price really. If on at £100g, a drop of £20g to £80g is possibly less of a cheeky offer than an offer of £400g on a property worth £500g? (Not that I'm an expert in property values!!!)

breatheslowly · 18/09/2013 19:57

I'd ask a solicitor - surely there are either standard arrangements or a solicitor would have an idea how it would go in court.

MayTheOddsBeEverInYourFavour · 18/09/2013 19:58

I don't think the timing of it should enter into at all, there are so many what if's but they aren't relevant

Looking at it from the outside I think 50/50 of the offer they have is fair but then I'm not a solicitor so I think they both need to seek legal advice

sleeplessbunny · 18/09/2013 20:01

sounds like the house is not the only asset, for a reasonable outcome there needs to be full financial disclosure (including pensions, which it sounds like Y may have sacrificed) and then the whole sum can be split 50/50 (presuming they want a clean break, have equal earning potential, no dependents etc). I suspect Y will need a lot more than 50% of the proceeds from the house sale.

I think the argument about selling at the top of the market instead of now is a red herring really.

DuelingFanjo · 18/09/2013 20:04

Y should just refuse to sell at that price.

vj32 · 18/09/2013 20:06

I think Y should get a bit more actually, if she is the one who is going to provide a home for the children (or the youngest at least).

Most people go back home for at least a year or two after uni. Sometimes more if they work in or near London or are trying to break into one of those careers that really requires you to work for a while for free.

If none of the children are going to move back home, then fine, split 50/50. But if Y is going to have to financially support the child for a while after uni, then she should get a bit more to allow for that.

sleeplessbunny · 18/09/2013 20:10

If Y holds out for more, they run the risk of X ceasing to pay their share of bills and council tax. Could Y afford to meet these bills in full? Without full financial disclosure and some sensible discussion this situation seems unlikely to be resolved, it's about the marital assets not just the house.

sleeplessbunny · 18/09/2013 20:11

X needs good legal advice, quickly.

froken · 18/09/2013 20:14

The problem with y's logic is that they would be selling at the height of the property boom but she would also be buying at the height of the property boom so she would have payed more for a small house and probably wouldn't have anuthing left over anyway.

Twilightsparklesmama · 18/09/2013 20:20

They both need legal advice before deciding on a division on the proceeds. I'm a Property lawyer not matrimonial but I would say this... The reason for the marriage breakdown is irrelevant, the starting point is usually 50/50 but can be adjusted to take into account parties needs and earning capacity, if they agree to divide without a consent or court order either party could later apply to court and this agreement could be set aside.

mumandboys123 · 18/09/2013 20:23

has legal advice been sought? if we are talking a long marriage (25 years), one half giving up a career to look after children, a paid off mortgage and probably a decent pension on the part of the one who worked then 50/50 is unlikely in front of a judge. I would suggest a look at wikivorce and a free first appointment with a solicitor if no legal advice has been so far forthcoming.

If you're a friend, keep out of it. There is nothing worse than a friend getting involved in the financial nitty gritty. She needs a settlement that works for her (and ultimately, that might be taking 50/50 and running) but not before understanding the likely outcome in court. She more than likely needs to be looking at a pension share after that length of marriage or off-setting for the house or most of the house.

Original poster

FetchezLaVache · 18/09/2013 21:24

Thanks for all the input! I know them both fairly well, but they're friends at one remove if you will, so I'll certainly not be getting involved. It was just being discussed over a few sherberts when I was staying with my sis last week. Apparently neither of them has taken legal advice (or are not letting on if they have) and are hoping to do it all amicably. DSis and DBIL have been both suggested lawyering up, but to no avail so far.

The family home's a big old farmhouse that costs a fortune to run and I don't think Y could afford a winter in there without help with the bills. I'm also pretty sure that the 2 years of having had half the running costs paid would probably be roughly the same the extra 5% of the proceeds, so I personally think they should just sell, split 50/50 and get on with their lives.

OP posts:

PorkPieandPickle · 18/09/2013 21:34

I agree OP. It's always best to try and resolve things amicably if the relationship allows it. All that happens otherwise is that the lawyers get a large sum of money that the couple could have split!!

Hope it works out for them :)

Viviennemary · 18/09/2013 21:42

I don't think there are any answers for these sort of situations. They either come to an agreement or let the lawyers sort it out and then they will lose even more money in legal fees. What a financial mess sometimes when people decide to divorce.

breatheslowly · 18/09/2013 22:09

I think there is a difference between taking some initial legal advice as information to help them decide an amicable split and taking it legal all of the way. I think a few hundred pounds of legal advice might be worthwhile and help them to move on. Spending thousands on legal advice might not be necessary.

ALittleStranger · 18/09/2013 22:17

Where on earth are they living? If it's London or the south-east the market hasn't collapsed (places are going in my neck of the woods over a weekend!). If it's been on the market for 18 months then it's clearly overpriced. Y needs to get real and sell at the price offered. How she then negotiates the split is another question. She can wish all she likes that they'd sold at the top of the market, but that didn't happen and there's no point holding out for another bubble.

DorisIsAPinkDragon · 18/09/2013 22:22

I think Y runs the risk of being left high and dry, if Y gave up a career to raise the children ( allowing x to work) there should be some financial dispensation in the split for this. I think Y needs proper financial advice before he/she regrets it in a few years time.

MsVestibule · 18/09/2013 22:24

IMO, she should get legal advice; it doesn't gave to make things acrimonious and I can't believe she hasn't done so already. As breatheslowly says, a few £100 spent on advice means she should know what she is legally entitled to. Too many women lose out on pension pots when it is a major marital asset.

But no, the fact that she 'could' have sold at the top of the market is irrelevant. Any house she bought then would have just been more expensive.

Flip

1 2