To not want to give my ex husband half of my savings

[cushion53]

I bought a house 14 years ago. My husband insisted on having his name on the title deed. He gave up his job to be a house husband and I worked to pay for everything, bills, school fees, mortgage everything. He was a useless deadbeat dad, drank all day, never helped in the house so I ended up doing my full time job and most of the home stuff as well. We finally parted ways very very bitterly. The house was sold and the proceeds are in my bank account. He's moved to another country where he still has no job. He's demanding that I give him half of the proceeds from the house. I am still working and paying to support my kids who are now in uni. We are officially divorced. Because of where we live the judgement involved him paying me money, which I never persued. I'm prepared to send him a monthly stipend but my lawyer here says I'm not even obliged by law to do that. He sends me threatening whatsapp messages demanding 'his money'. If I block him he pesters our daughter. AIBU to keep the money where it is and invest it carefully for my kids future? Or send him his half to be squandered on booze?

No, he gave up his career and now he doesn't have the same earning potential as you. He facilitated you going to work and in my country you'd be quite rightly giving him half.

There's always two sides to how much housework is done by who. We all think we're the lynchpin on which the whole house turns, I'd be interested to hear how much you did at home when you were physically out of the building and at work. I'm a working parent myself, never stayed at home, but even I can see the other side of this.

If a mother came on and told everyone that she was a SAHM but she drank all day, refused to pay maintenance for her children after her divorce and moved to another country, I would say she was a disgusting woman who didn't deserve a penny and to let her family get on with their lives because they were better off without her.

Actually I disagree you are divorced it's final asking for money after the fact is pointless he needs to move on

I think what solicitor says over rules what anyone on an internet forum says. Regardless of what's fair

You are clearly not under UK law though are you? So opinions here won't be worth much.

However if you were under UK law then the court would start fr the principle of splitting everything equally but will also consider unequal splits to ensure the kids have a reasonable home. If the whole pot of assets is sufficient that you could still have a home with half the pot then it would be 50:50.

He shouldn't get nothing at all though. Even with being generally useless with housework he still provided childcare which enabled you to continue your career unimpeded. He doesn't need a stipend. Offer him a lump sum as a full and final settlement.

Can you clarify:

• your kids or yours and his?
• did you buy the house before you were married or during the marriage?

From what you’ve said, in the UK he would be entitled to a share of the equity as would a female in the same position - and rightly so.
The percentage of that would depend on the age of the children involved, whether he had a viable job to return to after 14 years of child rearing, etc. Those variables could change things quite a bit.

I’m surprised if the house was in joint names the Solicitors paid the net proceeds of sale in to your sole account without his authority?

Surely this was dealt with as part of the divorce?

Usually, though, the one who was the SAHM has custody of the DC - it doesn't sound like this is the case here, so no reason why OP should be paying this loser maintenance.

OP is not in the UK and so I don't think it's necessarily right to apply UK law in her case.

Usually the SAHP parent is entitled to half the house because they have supported the family at home whilst the other parent WOOH.

In this case the SAHP didn't provide this support, sonshouldn't automatically be entitled to half the house.

You don't need to give him anything. And indeed, why should you?

Usually the SAHP parent is entitled to half the house because they have supported the family at home whilst the other parent WOOH.

There's no "because" about it. The non-earner gets the money because they were married, whether the contributed anything to the marriage is absolutely irrelevant. (If a rational calculated assessment of what you contributed was relevant, high-earners could be confident of keeping more than half of the money, usually.)

You need legal advice but if married isnt it usually 50:50. Image if op had been the one who stayed at home.

So your solicitor says if he wants money, he has to take you to court. Have they also said what would be the likely outcome if he does?

The OP states that her children are at university so I don't think that they come into things for maintenance or custody considerations.

OP, presumably the court has issued an order as to how finances should be split and these should be followed regardless of how unfair you think they are - no one wins in a divorce. I would be surprised if the court didn't insist that half the house proceeds went to your xH since most countries don't recognise pre-nuptials. Ie everything each of you had prior to marriage became "ours" post-marriage regardless of who has made the larger financial contribution.

All the ins and outs of how much your xH contributed to your domestic arrangement would have been weighed up in the divorce proceeding. The court will have weighed up that your xH was at home for the kids at the end of the school day, this enabled you to pursue a career and consequently his earning potential has diminished. The courts are familiar with bickering over how little housework the other did and make the financial order accordingly including a maintenance payment either way to ensure that both parties have a comfortable lifestyle. Normally it is the women on the back burner in earnings and career but the fact that it is a man here really doesn't make a difference.

If you're not in the UK and you haven't revealed where you are, how can you expect anyone to offer sensible (legal) advice?

What does name on title deed have to do with anything.

Rather a lot, if you were in the UK: the starting point would be that it's owned 50/50.

It does seem surprising that, if there has already been a court order, it did not include something about what happens to the house.

Strange how many SAHP become useless deadbeats the moment divorce is in the air. He was a drunken waster yet you were happued to stay married to him and have him bring up your kids for 18 years?

You were married to him; half the money is rightfully his. You don’t get to say whether or not he is worthy of it or even what he does with it. He is entitled to his half, and his is equally entitled to piss it all away if he so wishes because it is rightfully his money that you are keeping from him.

He needs to take you to court, and the court will decide what proportion of the proceeds of the sale is his.

I would expect he had to sign papers before the house could be sold? Was nothing agreed then?

Why wasn't the house (as an asset) considered when your divorce was done? Did he get other stuff - pension/cash in accounts etc. Surely he can't just have walked away with nothing more than his personal possessions?!

But it's not your savings - they are yours so he's entitled to his share

I'm a little torn, if he really was as useless as you describe then I don't think he deserves much. On the other hand if he gave up his career to look after your children and enabled your career during a long marriage I do think he deserves a share of the accumulated assets.

I guess I'm just a little cautious (and perhaps projecting a little bit) because I have an uncle who will tell all and sundry how his ex wife is fleecing him for all the money he earned when she wasn't even a good wife, didn't look after the house etc. In actual fact he made it impossible for her to work (they had both been lawyers) because after her maternity leave during which time he'd been made a partner, he would have been the much higher earner so refused to compromise anything to do with his career. She had to do sick days, pick ups, parents evenings, school plays etc alone and just couldn't establish her career again. She actually became quite depressed and their marriage broke up.

Now perhaps this isn't the case and your ex really contributed absolutely nothing to the relationship and to the kids upbringing. Of course you would also want to consider whether giving him money will compromise the contribution you could give to your kids starting their lives (education - masters degrees, flat deposit etc.). If he's actually an alcoholic who will just drink it all away and that money could go towards your children then absolutely don't give it to him. Just make sure you're being absolutely honest with yourself.

Thanks for all your replies. We lived together in a country where live in help is the norm so I also paid for a full time helper, gardener, car washer you name it. When I told him I expected him at least to cook an evening meal he replied ‘I’m not going to be your f ing maid’ I begged him to get a job, get some qualifications anything. He had plenty of time when the kids grew up to do that. On top of that he threatened to take them away from me when they were little. I waited until they were older to push on with the divorce.

My conscience tells me I should help him financially but I will be working for at least another 10 years supporting my kids and building a pot to retire, while he sits doing nothing