Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To feel my home ownership dream is jeopardised

28 replies

ChristmasbloodyChristmas · 30/11/2019 09:00

I've lived in rented accommodation since the breakdown of my first marriage almost 10 years ago. I'm now remarried. I've worked hard all of my life and feel that owning your own home (albeit via a mortgage) is important.

I'm saving hard but with house prices at around £200k for a starter home, it's going to be a long time before I have enough for a deposit.

My AIBU - my husband and I have separate finances as he has to support his ex-wife financially until a set time in the future (long story that makes my teeth itch). Their children are adults (20 and 18), he earns £35k a year but has to pay her £600 per month. This is by court order and includes the child maintenance for the youngest until he finishes full time education, although the spousal maintenance will continue until the youngest is 25!! I'll never know why he agreed to it. AIBU to feel he's jeopardised our future home ownership? Sorry this is a wee bit rambley.

Oh and if anyone has any ideas about how to save or buy a home without a huge deposit, please let me know!

OP posts:
OwlinaTree · 30/11/2019 09:06

Well it's a done deal with the maintenance. You'll have to let it go.

Are there cheaper areas to buy in? You could buy a house that needs doing up. If you do the work yourself you might be able to sell for quite a bit more, enabling the deposit in the area you want more.

CatUnderTheStairs · 30/11/2019 09:09

He could go back to court to get it revised.

orangeteal · 30/11/2019 09:15

God that's insane, he only earns that much and has that kind of agreement, can he not take it back to court?

In terms of what you can do, what do you earn? Can you earn more?

littlepaddypaws · 30/11/2019 09:18

i'd go back to court with that one, paying until youngest is 25 ? his ex must really enjoy this income,

LionelRitchieStoleMyNotebook · 30/11/2019 09:22

The paying until they finish full time education is fair and what most parents do, and lots beyond, the spousal maintenance until the youngest is 25 is outrageous regardless of his salary.

73Sunglasslover · 30/11/2019 09:24

It sounds like a high proportion of his salary but if she stopped/ reduced work to look after their children she may 'pay' for that decision forever so why shouldn't he? Albeit at potentially a lower proportion of his income.

Original poster
ChristmasbloodyChristmas · 30/11/2019 09:35

I fully support the child maintenance element of the payment, that is until the youngest is finished in full time education (probably next year). It's the extra six years that sticks in my craw, plus at a much higher rate than usual child maintenance.

The argument that she stopped/reduced work to look after children is null and void. She had an opportunity to go back to work around 15 years ago when the youngest started school but chose to be a SAHM until they separated when she had to go back to work. He encouraged her to return to work but she refused. Obviously I wasn't around so I don't know the exact details, but from what I know of her, work is a four letter word to her so having children and staying at home suited her. Why should he suffer, many women with children go back to work and she had every opportunity to.

OP posts:
Original poster
ChristmasbloodyChristmas · 30/11/2019 09:37

I have three jobs, which take up most of my time. I can't do anything to earn more much as I'd like to.

OP posts:
littlepaddypaws · 30/11/2019 09:39

she comes across as lazy and needs to get off her arse.

73Sunglasslover · 30/11/2019 09:41

The argument that she stopped/reduced work to look after children is null and void. She had an opportunity to go back to work around 15 years ago when the youngest started school but chose to be a SAHM until they separated when she had to go back to work.

So she had at least 7 years not working which she and your OH both decided upon? So that alone will have affected her career progression wouldn't it? She will be disadvantaged in that respect forever. It's a shame your OH wasn't the stay at home parent for 7 years as then it might be the other way round with her giving him spousal maintenance.

RandomMess · 30/11/2019 09:44

As it's court ordered he can take it back to court and ask for reconsideration 🤷🏽‍♀️

orangeteal · 30/11/2019 09:46

@73Sunglasslover no come on, we all know the impact staying home has, but maintenance over the age of 18 is ridiculous, you can't possibly think 20% of his income (especially when not particularly high) until the youngest is 25 is remotely fair.

Sistercharlie · 30/11/2019 09:48

Presumably the DC at eighteen and twenty will face the same difficulties that you do with getting a deposit together, whether it's for renting or buying a flat, if not more so?

DC stay at home much longer than 18 yrs nowadays - they often come home after university - and it's expensive. Children don't automatically become self supporting at 18 yrs or even 20 yrs. It's a difficult world out there (as you know). My nephew at 25 yrs has only just become self supporting with a job and a flat of his own (and even then he got help from his parents with the deposit).

Surely it's a good thing your DH supports his DC well? You hear of so many fathers who bugger off and do sod all for their offspring on here. And without wishing to sound unsympathetic, you presumably knew he had DC when you married him.

As for his wife, you only know one side of the story as to why she remained a sahm. Yes she may have made poor choices. Or she may have made decisions based on how much practical support she had. Or she may have been depressed in an unhappy marriage and that was interpreted as "lazy". It may have been difficult for her to re-enter the workplace despite a lot of effort on her part. You can't know for sure.

Sorry that all of this makes things difficult for you though but it is as it is.

73Sunglasslover · 30/11/2019 09:51

(@73Sunglasslover no come on, we all know the impact staying home has, but maintenance over the age of 18 is ridiculous, you can't possibly think 20% of his income (especially when not particularly high) until the youngest is 25 is remotely fair.

I'm not sure that the % is right but I don't agree that the husband should only feel the impact of their joint decision until the kids are 21 but the wife should feel it forever.

73Sunglasslover · 30/11/2019 09:53

As for his wife, you only know one side of the story as to why she remained a sahm. Yes she may have made poor choices. Or she may have made decisions based on how much practical support she had.

I agree with you on this SisterCharlie. Getting a job which fit in school hours is not as easy as it sounds nor does it give you many options for a good career. Wrap around childcare can take all your wages. We don't really know what went on having just heard one side of the story.

Greenwingmemories · 30/11/2019 09:54

I don't know about the legal position but ethically it doesn't seem fair. It's not as if she enabled him to have a very high flying career or she got used to a very high standard of living if he's on £35k. It's a decent salary but he's not a high roller.

I'd certainly consult a shit hot lawyer to see if it's worth revisiting the original court order. Out of interest did she get the family home in the original settlement or were they renting? If so, it seems extremely unfair for her to have her own home and for him to never be able to afford it.

littlepaddypaws · 30/11/2019 09:58

she doesn't have child care now and wouldn't have done for years, we don't know her circumstances obviously but this is still absurd.
career ? many women don't have high flying careers [except on mn] in rl women are working in all sorts of employment, so an extented career lapse isn't really a good excuse,

Original poster
ChristmasbloodyChristmas · 30/11/2019 11:44

@73Sunglasslover the decision over whether or not she was a SAHM had nothing to do with me, so I'm not sure why you're saying I had any say in the decision!

As for not working for seven years, I understand my husband gave her the option of returning to work and he would stay at home. She laughed in his face! She didn't have a career before children so wasn't giving up anything, she worked a little in retail.

The wrap around childcare argument is surely for both sides, DH would have been paying this also to enable her to return to work.

She has to work now and bitterly complains about it regularly. Fortunately she has the luxury of part time work as her ex husband enables her to.

I have no complaints and am very pleased DH supports his children. I'm just not so pleased he supports his lazy ex wife.

OP posts:
Original poster
ChristmasbloodyChristmas · 30/11/2019 11:45

This 'giving up a career' is such a poor excuse but the ONLY one a SAHP has!

OP posts:
Thehop · 30/11/2019 11:47

He can go back to court and ask for reconsideration on spousal maintainence

TowelNumber42 · 30/11/2019 11:47

He can take it back to court. Is there a reason why he isn't?

stucknoue · 30/11/2019 11:50

He needs to be paying for university (or to a lesser extent apprenticeships which pay very badly) and yes my stbexh is paying spousal, a lot more than that (he earns more) until they have both permanently left home and the mortgage is paid off (at which point he's gifting the house to me). Kids aren't free because they are 18, I pay around £400 to each of mine a month for university costs (they have minimum loan due to his wage) and I needed to put my career on hold for 20 years, even in sixth form every 3 weeks I had to take a day off to fetch dd from boarding school, other dd still requires assistance with medical appointments because of sn. Second wives need to take this into account before marriage. The guy I'm dating supports his ex - I'm fine with it

DowntownAbby · 30/11/2019 11:53

@73Sunglasslover

It could look as though you're determined to blame the man for this woman's incredible laziness.

I'm sure you're not, of course, but just saying it could read that way.

Bluntness100 · 30/11/2019 11:54

Was it agreed by the courts? Or just and agreement between them?

And was he with you when this was decided?

dontgobaconmyheart · 30/11/2019 11:56

You sound like you have quite a few complaints to be fair OP, all about a woman who you know nothing about, you're literally complaining about her!

I'd give up focusing on her, it's really none of your business and you have one aide of the story from the person least likely to have any objectivity so what is the point. He obviously didn't mind any of it when he wanted to be with her and procreated.

You ultimately chose to marry and decide on your DH as a partner, knowing he was tied in financially and how it would affect your financial future together. Sniping about her laziness and blaming her for your finances doesn't alter that at all.

We are moving to a town we don't like, hours away in order to afford our first home- I assume this isn't an option if your DH sees his DC locally but if home owning is a priority all you can do is raise your own salaries and save. Improve your professional qualifications, retrai, look at career change options (are you not paying higher levels of tax with multiple jobs), ask DH to go to court and reduce the payment.

Without knowing what job you do or what you're qualified in, it's hard to advise- if you want to be a higher earner it really might be worth looking into higher education and retraining, in the long run it may pay dividends- a mortgage needs to be paid after all, after you've got one, and you need to be able to afford the rates if they go up after a fixed term.

Swipe left for the next trending thread