More of a WWYD? Moral dilemma

[Zarathustrasilver]

NC for this.

I have been separated from my husband for 5 years and we are now finally getting round to sorting out the financials and our divorce.

We were together for 7 years before getting married and married for 2 years before we split up. I'm currently renting with no chance of getting onto the property ladder until I have saved a deposit.

We met in 2002, I moved into his house in 2003 and I went onto the mortgage in 2005. We then married in 2009. We have no children together. I left the marriage with nothing, he is still in the house with our 2 dogs. I contributed to the house financially from when I moved in, 8 years before we split up.

The split has been more than amicable, we are still friendly and have met up for a few times for coffee and a chat to discuss the financial stuff and text and chat on the phone every so often.

We have joint debts amounting to approx 10k. His suggestion was that he will pay off the joint debt and I will come off the mortgage and then we would be completely separate from each other financially. This was agreed about a year after we split. I was in complete agreement about walking away and not asking for anything else. The reason for this was over my guilt over how we separated because I left him for someone else who I now have 1 child with.

Last month we got the ball rolling by going to a solicitor each to draw up a separation agreement.

My solictor told me that I would be legally entitled to a substantial amount of money after the debts are cleared off.

I was aware that I would be legally entitled to money as we were married and I was on the mortgage however I had decided years ago that I wouldn't ask for anything because of the guilt I would feel asking this after I left for him someone else and that it was his house to begin with.

So really what I'm asking is what would you do in this situation? Would you ask for a cash lump sump sum as well as what we'd agreed?

Also, OP - being with your ex-partner for years only 'hindered' you in having your own place if you paid him more than you would have in rent for a similar place.

You have no children together. If you lived with him as a consenting adult at fair market rate, I think that morally he owes you nothing in terms of the house value.

(And lawyers often don't tell you what's right and reasonable, just the maximum that the law might allow you to get. Trust me, I am one. )

I was in complete agreement about walking away and not asking for anything else.

This is what you wrote in your OP. Is it because many posters told you to stick to your word that you started changing your story and saying actually you didn't really agree you just went along with it?

Your solicitor had an obligation to tell you your legal rights - solicitors do not advise on moral obligations or how to be a good human being or anything to do with integrity. That's down to you. Do the right thing. Your word is your bond.

How would you feel if someone made a promise to you and then backed away from it just because legally they could?

I have had so many times in life when people did the right thing by me, not because the law said they had to, but because they are good people. Try to be a good person even if you don't believe in karma.

Lawyers have a vested interest in telling you to chase money that's how they get paid more

With a child, I would seek a better settlement, I wouldn't prioritise my exDH and my own guilt over my child's interests.

The financial settlement is separate from blame in uk law. You are taking less due to your guilt- how much is that guilt worth to you?

It sounds like you agreed to his plan, and his uncle's plan, without taking legal advice and to assuage your guilt. I wouldn't say you have to stick to your word when your word wasn't informed.

Cannot believe that so many people are telling you to walk away from what you are entitled to.

I think you need to separate your moral guilt from your legal entitlement. If he had left you people would be telling you to get what you are owed. Fortunately the law doesn't work like that. I think your ex is being very clever - being nice to your face which assuages your guilt, while screwing you over financially. That is as bad, if not worse, behaviour than how you ended the relationship.

I am sure that he was hurt, but I do not believe that he is entitled to financial compensation for that.

As a pp poster said, that is one hell of an expensive guilt trip.

If it helps, think that getting a fair financial settlement is helping to secure your DCs future.

Firstly, she may be entitled to £20k but she may not actually get it. Certainly not if he decides to fight her through the Courts where if she loses, she could end up with nothing plus his costs but certainly nowhere near this amount once solicitor and barrister fees are taken into consideration.

And those saying she needs to fight for the money because of her child. That child isn't the exes issue. The child is with someone else and you are effectively saying that the ex should cough up so she can use the money to buy a house with the bloke she left him for and house her child?

I'm a bit at some of these posts. Where are your morals? I see it plenty on here where a man leaves his wife for another woman and the general consensus is that he should get nothing as he left and cheated. Why the double standards?

No wonder women are seen as gold diggers. Just walk away with your dignity intact for crying out loud. It's not your house and you deserve nothing from it.

Oh and personally I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I didn't get a fair financial agreement for myself.

Oh, and I wouldn't agree a man cheating should get nothing. That argument is ridiculous.

It sounds like your ex tried to set things up so you wouldn't have an entitlement to the property and that he and his uncle later drew up an unfair "settlement" and relied on your feeling guilty to agree to it, which you initially did (unfortunately).

It sounds like the money, if any is due, could be really important to you now.

The circumstances of your breakup are legally irrelevant.

I think your ex is being very clever

How is he being clever? It was his house before he met her! She moved in. She fell in love with someone else. She moved out. There were no children. She left the joint debt for him to pay off.

I didn't want to say it but I'm glad a pp has said it: no wonder women are seen as gold diggers. It is shameful, really. Even without bringing gender into it, this would be a shameful way for anyone to treat someone else (male or female).

I don't see why you think you'd have managed to get on the property ladder yourself had you not lived with him. You moved into someone else's home, paid (presumably) relatively little in contribution in comparison to what renting somewhere else on your own would cost, and still spent on credit cards to the point you ended up in debt

How do you expect you'd have managed to save a deposit while paying out even more renting somewhere else?

I think you're clutching at straws to try and justify screwing him over, again.

What OP might have paid in rent elsewhere or done about her own property is legally irrelevant.

In legal terms it seems clear that it's the OP who's been "screwed over".

What would I do, if my DW had an affair, (lied) left me, made a financial agreement and went back on that (lied)?

I would spend every penny I had dragging exW into debt, making sure there was the absolute minimum (or better, nothing) left at the end.

Well, following updates I probably would be a gutless wonder and not go after my entitlement. BUT: I would advise you to. Speak to your solicitor. He doesn't have to sell the house for that level of money maybe.

Wow surprised people would even consider trying to take his money! Of course you shouldn't just because you can, use your morals. You moved into HIS house (so wouldn't of contributed to deposit) and yes contributed to the mortgage (you would have had to pay living expenses anywhere) and his offering to pay off the joint debt for you after you left him for someone else. Come on, don't be mean stick to what you agreed sounds more than fair.

I ended up with far less than I was entitled to from my divorce. It was my choice to end the marriage, and I didn't want to screw him financially, as well as emotionally.

I think he acknowledged that and appreciated it. We are good friends now, and co-parents, and that's far more important to me than the extra cash.

Given the hardball attitude that most MN posters display on the relationships board when it comes to money I don't believe a word of this 'stick to your word' bollocks. So many posts about 'taking men to the cleaners' and OP here isn't looking at anything of the sort herself.

I don't believe most of the posters when they say 'do the right thing' because people are inherently selfish, it only varies by degrees of selfishness... and it's so, so easy to say 'do the right thing' from behind a keyboard when you have absolutely no stake in the situation.

OP, tell your solicitor that you do not want anything over and above fair - and you can negotiate downwards from that point if you want to. Your ex will see that you're doing that too.

Do the decent thing stick with what you agreed. You'll be a better person for it . Anything else will just be messy and you'll likely regret it.

Imagine the reverse situation. Your now partner leaves you for another woman and moves out.

How would you feel if he tried to do the same to you?

I think there are many more important things in life than money. Don't you?

Did you have separate finances during the relationship? Because he has managed to save £400 per month into a work saving scheme. Did this mean that your wage covered more of the living expenses or did you literally split all bills 50/50.

I think that if he financially benefitted from you during those years then yes, you should persue a better settlement. If he didn't then I think it would be a bit mean to cheat on him and then take his money to set yourself up with the OM.

Which means more to you? Your integrity or the money. Stick to your word Op. Is your new DP/DH pushing for you to go after the money?

I have read all your responses, thank you. I was expecting a complete flogging tbh

Finances were all pooled together - wages into same account and bills paid from that. I have no idea how much I contributed over that time!

We are both still paying off the joint debt. I didn't leave him with that.

I can't just come the mortgage, he needs to be able take it over in his name only which he can't at the moment (the reason for this is irrelevant so I won't be going into detail) so his dad is going to and he will effectively "rent" it from him until he can take it on himself.

At work just now and have a meeting to go to so I can't answer all the questions at the moment!

To me you paid rent, living cost for 8 years so therefore why would you be entitled to anything.

It sounds like you want everything your way. You left him for some one else, you agreed to for him to pay off your debts to remove your name off the mortgage. And now you want more so you and your OM can buy a house.

How much more do want to take from your Ex. Just because house prices have risen over the last 5 years since you left him doesn't mean you should be paid any money.

Just go with what you agreed 5 years ago and buy your own home.

I think it very much depends on how much you paid in and what that would mean for you financially vs how you think you'd feel about going back on your agreement. for instance if you'd paid 50% of mortgage and household bills for a number of years is a substantial amount and I'm not sure I would be so quick to walk away from that.

Did you know you'd be entitled to more when you made the agreement? If you did, you have less of a moral case for asking for more. If you didn't know, then I would think it over. I also wonder if your DH knew you'd be entitled to more and so agreed to pay of your share of the 10K debt in the hope you'd think that was it all "even", knowing full well that wasn't the case?

Ultimately, it depends on how you'd feel about asking for more. If you think it will make you miserable, then I doubt it is worth it. Personally, this would depend whether I thought ex-DH had tried to stitch me up re the mortgage or not (i.e. did he know I would be entitled to more, when I didn't realise that was the case when we made an agreement).

I was of the walk away camp until I heard about the £400. I think that does change things. If that had been in the family pot there wouldn't be 10k debt.

What was the debt spent on? Whose spending was that etc. How much has the house increased in value since you have been contributing to the mortgage?

Because of the £400 I think the op may be entitled to 50% of the increase in value while she was contributing to the mortgage unless most of the debt was her spending, rather than family things. This is true particularly if the debt was spent on increasing the value of the house.

Love the double standards on here. There's no moral virtue in allowing yourself to be conned. Integrity? Or stupidity? I wonder just how much would make a number of the PPs question their own integrity!