to think I’m not being unreasonable (divorce)

[BettyBroderick]

We are divorcing. Kids are pre teens, some mild disabilities.
My pension pot is 400
His pension pot is 725
Cash/shares 40
I’m SAHM, no income
He earns 85k
House equity 500
Mortgage -50

I want to keep the house, with no mortgage,
Not so bothered about anything else. Is that fair?

He wants to sell the house to release the equity and us both buy somewhere each, mine outright, and him using his as a deposit and then remortgaging. He wants the kids 50:50 so no child maintenance and also wants a clean break. We are both 50.

I think he’s not being fair. AIBU?

I have some similar issues OP, not all as I do work, but I got advice from the Pensions Advisory Service you can book an appointment with them - they advised me that on paper I would be able to keep the house and H keep his large pension. Its good to start from that point but then where would H live? My DCs wouldnt want to see H in a grotty bedsit so he has to get some equity out of the house - OR - and its a big OR - he has to have some cash somehow. That's still a sticking point for us - how can I keep the house and let him have somewhere decent to live?

There are so many variables here, but I agree he won't do 50:50. And in any case I think its very fair that you are considering all the options. I also agree that you are not going to get great advice on here as a lot of it so far seems to be based on you having to work whether or not thats practical. I think some MNetters just want to see others struggling!

Why are some posters making so many assumptions about this guy's with nothing alluding to him being what they assume?

Only earning high because of OP not working.

Incapable of looking after them properly on a 50/50 basis.

Couldn't possibly considered as suggested above that he might welcome a change in his life and reduce his hours to spend more time with his kids.

Or, just like the possibity that OP has a boyfriend who will be supporting her in the future, maybe he has a new girlfriend currently a SAHM who would be willing to help with childcare.

There are so many scenarios possible in this situation and we don't k is 1/2 of it, yet do many jumping to conclusion that the guy is incompetent when it comes to childcare.

It's attitude like this that makes Man's eputstion of sexism.

eputstion??? Reputation!

If keeping same home for the children is so important can't he buy his half from you?

Why are some posters making so many assumptions about this guy's with nothing alluding to him being what they assume?

You're new round here aren't you

Hi @dontdisturbmenow, welcome to Misandrynet Mumsnet

Ah Joe all the Menz are welcome here. Just font fucking whine about how tough you've got it.

Fairest is to split 50/50, you keep your pension and about £400k of equity, he keeps his pension, shares and 50k of equity. That way you can buy somewhere outright and he has enough for a deposit and can get a mortgage.

YANBU to want that. He has much higher earning power so he can save for another deposit. Get a decent lawyer and take what you can.

Why should we split 50/50 when the OP has sacrificed her career and he has a high-ish earning potential? No way

@MarriedtoDaveGrohl

Ah Joe all the Menz are welcome here. Just font fucking whine about how tough you've got it.

First of all perhaps spell check before trying to be witty. Second, you are terrible at guessing peoples sex, but that just reinforces my original point.

@roarfeckingroarr

Why should we split 50/50 when the OP has sacrificed her career and he has a high-ish earning potential? No way

What career? She gave it up BEFORE she had kids.

Why do people keep saying OP had sacrificed her career? She states she gave up work due to her accident so there was no career to begin with.

Fairest is to split 50/50

No, not by a long shot. OP - you have not had a fair hearing on here, largely I suspect from people who haven't got the first clue about the processes involved in divorce. Have you had a look on wikivorce? There is excellent support there from people with genuine knowledge and understanding of how the system works. It doesn't sound at all likely that you will end up with a 50/50 split as the process of divorce is to attempt to put each party back out into the world on a roughly equal footing. Your needs are far greater than his due to your disability, your lack of recent work experience (and, I assume, problems with actually being able to work?) and your need to be able to care for your children 50% of the time (at least). You need to ask your stbx some hard questions about how he intends to continue working and manage the children since you have taken on that role for years now. You should be aware that with primary aged children, courts tend to favour the status quo where there is a disagreement about who should care for the children so if you think he would make a poor job of it or simply have them in childcare for days at a time when you're at home twiddling your thumbs, there is an argument to be had to have the children spend more than half their time with you.

Take a deep breath and do some research on the legal side of things. There are too many people here who don't seem to get it at all. The more you understand, the better and more targetted your questions can be to a solicitor (who will cost a small fortune) and the harder it is to have the wool pulled over your eyes. You do have to make sure you get the best possible settlement for you and your children when they are with you. Good luck.

@roarfeckingroarr

Why should we split 50/50 when the OP has sacrificed her career and he has a high-ish earning potential? No way

Did she? she gave up work after an accident! Doesn't sound like her husbands fault her earning problems.

Thankyou, Enoughnowstop. That’s pretty much what my solicitor has said.

There are some very odd views on here.

Even if she didn't give up her career specifically for the kids, she has spent the past xx years enabling her husband to progress his own by being the default parent. The OP should get financial recognition of this in the settlement.

I was in a similar position and was either going to keep his equity or have a pension order. However, I work PT so could take on the mortgage and was having DCs near 100% and arranged and paid for childcare clubs. I kept his equity but my solicitor said my ability to take on the mortgage was crucial.

@Enoughnowstop is right. I'm in a similar situation to you op, but a year down the line, so know how it works. I posted a while ago about my situation and had a raft of very bitter posters intent on telling me that sahps should get basically nothing. Luckily, the law doesn't agree with them.

a raft of very bitter posters intent on telling me that sahps should get basically nothing

I think the issue with this particular scenario is not that anybody is saying OP should get nothing but that she seems to be expecting her Ex-H to get nothing and to have to go from living in a nearly mortgage-free house to starting renting at the age of 50, quite possibly for the rest of his life.

As far as the pensions go, that money is locked away for probably at least 10-15 years and, even then, cannot be taken as a lump sum without heavy tax penalties (and if it were, what would they live off on a daily basis?). It wouldn't necessarily be unreasonable for their two pension pots to be split equally and for them to get exactly half each - but that makes no difference to either of them for a decade or more.

Therefore, with the pensions out of the mix, the combined assets are worth £540K - and OP is wanting to take all of that, as well him give her/commit to pay an additional £10K on top of that.

Before retirement, this means that she gets close on 102% of their joint assets and he gets -2%. £85K is a very nice salary, but without a deposit (and starting off with £10K debt), he won't be getting a mortgage any time soon, if at all, especially not at 50.

This would also put paid to any intentions he does or doesn't have of being responsible for the children 50/50: he won't have room to be able to do so if he's only able to rent a small flat, so OP would then become the full-time (or close on) RP; meaning that, because he wasn't left with any money for a deposit on a small property for himself, he not only misses out on the chance of having his kids live with him, but will have to pay maintenance to their mother, who is able to house them nicely, as she was left with all of their joint assets.

Whatever the law dictates, IMHO, the fairest moral way to work it would be for them to each get 50% of whatever pension pot there is, come retirement time, and in the meantime, sell the £550K house and use the £540K they're left with to buy a house worth approx £380K for her outright and him use the remaining £160K for a sizeable deposit on a smaller house of his own, paying the mortgage from his nice-but-not-megabucks salary, whilst she is mortgage-free.

I've not read the whole thread but just want to say OP, don't trust AIBU posters on Mumsnet. They get off on attacking people who create threads.

Anyways, YANBU. Keep the house. Also I know you didn't mention this, but if your child has autism then it is very important for them to retain consistency for their mental benefit and so that they do not regress. I think this will mean that they will not handle 50:50 anyway because of that (if that is the case) and they are vulnerable so it is in the children's best interest to remain in their home with their primary caretaker. Please mention their condition to the solicitor and how it makes them vulnerable, as I think it will make the case that you get the majority of custody and keep the house.

I don't understand the accusations of bitterness here. If anything it seems to me the people insisting she should get the lion's share because the lazy man who could never handle 50:50 left her to bring up the kids alone come across as more bitter.

Even if she didn't give up her career specifically for the kids, she has spent the past xx years enabling her husband to progress his own by being the default parent. The OP should get financial recognition of this in the settlement.

Nobody is saying she should get no financial recognition we're just saying that they have both contributed equally and it doesn't seem right for her to stay in an unnecessarily large house if it means he cannot even afford something for himself. Posters are advocating for more equal recognition, not none at all.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll
My situation is this. On very similar figures to the op, our solicitors have agreed on splitting it up exactly the way you say won't happen. We're selling our family house. My exdh (50) is to get a 15% deposit for a house and his pension. With a decent salary he can get a mortgage to get a house the same value as mine. In fact, his is slightly more expensive. I get all the remaining equity to get a house outright. With a low salary and the childcare, I cannot get a decent mortgage. So, it goes by needs.
The utility discount on a pension is from 0-25% depending on needs, (would be closer to 0% for ops case as he doesn't 'need' the money now, she does).

I think it's outrageous to expect to keep the house, with no mortgage!

This is why men who are high-earners or who have the potential to become high-earners should never get married.

Just a few points:

1. How will you afford to run a £500,000 house with no income?
2. You don't get too dictate whether you get 50/50. You need to accept that he's a parent as much as you are. If you think that 50/50 is bad for your children "because they need continuity" then you should give him full custody. Mothers who think they're entitled to more custody for no reason other than having a vagina destroy the reputation of women who actually try to co-parent and be reasonable.
3. When you say you're not bothered about anything else, do you mean you'll give him your full pension? Which he can then draw down to purchase a house? If so, how will you support yourself in your old age?
4. Truthfully, yes, YABU. The house is by far your most valuable asset (as well you know). Your ex would be beyond stupid to give it to you for nothing. Given that he's financially supported you for years (and by your own admission, your decision to stop working was not due to him, the marriage or the children), he should be entitled to far more of the house than you.