To expect my exH to rent rather than buy?

[PopitPop]

Asking for your viewpoints on the morality of this - I know I need legal advice.

H is useless, mean, doesn't help, I've tried again and again to talk and been ignored or laughed at. It's over for me. He won't accept it but I'm cracking on working out how it will work.

We have been married 6 years.
We own a home worth £600k.
£280k of this is equity
I put in ALL this equity (from savings, inheritance, a sale of a flat before I met him)
I earn £75k
He earns £30k.

I work full time and also do all the housework and childcare. I am the higher earner but also do most of everything. He is pretty hands off. He likes video games more than his job/family/friends.

Anyway - I spoke to a solicitor who said that he will get a much bigger % of that equity because he can't afford to buy a house round here on £30k without taking a huge % of that equity.

I want H to live in a home that is suitable for our 3 young DC to go stay and I want to be fair.

But is it really fair that he takes say 75% plus of the equity to allow him to buy somewhere?

He chose a job that pays £30k. He quit his high paid job. He chose to have no savings. He can afford to rent somewhere suitable but for him to buy somewhere with 3 beds - he would need to take a huge % of that equity. I would need to sell the home. I've worked bloody hard and have saved, worked overtime, pushed for promotion etc (and been fortunate to get an inheritance from a relative I know).

Do the settlements always look at what someone can BUY?

AIBU to think that he should have enough money to rent somewhere but shouldnt expect to be given enough money to buy somewhere?

Pls don't feel sorry for him. I can't tell you how awful he's been over the last 2 years.

I think a Judge would not want the children to be moving, so you should be able to stay in the family home.
Does he have to live in the same area? eg - just a few miles down the road would be a lot cheaper. Also a 3/4 bed flat in the same area (or not) would also be a lot cheaper than a house, and fine for the kids to stay over in.
There are cases where Judges have ordered the better off partner to give X money to buy Y family home, but when youngest turns 21 (or whatever), the family home is sold and the assets split in a particular way. (The better off person has their own home all along). That might be a way of your kids staying with Dad in a suitable place but you not losing so much equity.
Why does he earn so much less? What are his qualifications? What did he earn previously? Unless it's to do with health or bc he is the primary childcare provider, this would be taken into account. It's earnings potential and not just earnings that matter.

Realistically how often will he have the children if he doesn’t look after them now? There is a risk that either he has then v rarely and not overnight or he moves onto another relationship. On that basis I’d argue that he doesn’t need a large property.

I just don't know if I can stomach that. Handing over £200k of my savings and family money

It won't be your choice so you'll have to stomach it if that's what's ordered. But it would help a lot for you to reframe it. It isn't "your" savings but both of yours, regardless of who actually earned the money. This is what you agreed to when you got married. You're not paying him anything.

Ring fencing means nothing once you are married so you weren't foolish in that sense. If you stay in the marital home as the main carer for the children I'm not sure that you can be forced to sell it before the youngest is 18 anyway.

@PopitPop I think you being expected to move (or rather the kids being expected to) is very unlikely. If you remortgaged your home for the max you are able to whilst staying there, what could you give him, and what would that buy - potentially in the not so immediate area?
If he wastes his life on video games then a Judge is not going to be too sympathetic.
You really do need a lawyer - have you thought about getting a barrister directly? If you just google "direct access barrister" you could get an opinion and a meeting from a senior person for much less than you might think. You will probably need a solicitor too to go through everything, but doing this so you know where you stand to begin with sounds like it might help.

Get a second legal opinion on that.

Just throwing a random suggestion out there but would it be possible for you to allow him to stay in the family home and pay you rent then sell up when the children are adults.

OP I don’t mean to stick the boot in but what exactly did you think marriage was? It’s a legal joining of all assets. Men who are the higher earners frequently have to walk away with far less than they put in to ensure their children are appropriately housed in a split. Unfortunately his uselessness isn’t a factor in the legalities. You are BU I’m afraid. If the situation was reversed would you think it was fair you had to rent?

@TedMullins I know. I just guess...in lots of cases with roles reversed the contribution of the lower earner or SAHP is childcare, home, cleaning etc. We pay for nursery and nannies because despite DH working fewer hours he doesn't look after them. DH took a lower paid job for mental health reasons he says but actually he just wants a life where he doesn't do any of it. When I married him I had no idea he would be like this. We are not a partnership or team. I know that's all irrelevant but I guess I wanted a view on whether it was fair to suggest to him that I give him say £40k from the house and he can be free of us all. That would mean he could rent somewhere and do whatever he wants and start again without us as we make him so miserable

It feels tough but you’re in the position that is extremely common for higher earning men on divorce. The law favours the lower earner and usually that’s the woman.

the law doesn’t care who contributed or not (broadly) nor whether each party has pulled their weight. If you were a man there would be unanimous comments that your wife deserved her share in order to provide for children. I see you’ve broadly had that response too which is good.

and expect him to take half your pension too I’m afraid.

Same here, I know the feeling! Nearly passed out when 2 solicitors confirmed that after spending a marriage being the main earner and main carer, and enduring some fairly horrible behaviour at home, I was about to hand over more than half of everything to make things 'fair' - even including pension built up after living together but before marriage.

If it's any help, the things people say here about 'ring fencing' a deposit don't necessarily mean much. If you've bought a lot of assets to the marriage AND have a solid pre-nup some things can be protected in some cases, but it's hard, and even more so with kids involved. I was also told that behaviour means basically nothing, even abusive actions on recrd - I believe there might be some argument that if it was so bad that he's never going to be allowed to have the kids over (or never wants to), you could argue he doesn't need to have an equal place. Because it's money you brought in there could be some more argument, but I was told that it was risky and the cost of arguing it was likely to cost more than any upside, plus destroy goodwill.

Does sometimes make me pause when I see people on here arguing that someone who's been a sahp years past having kids at school deserves an equal share for having 'facilitated' all the ex's success. Am sure it's sometimes true, and also know of women who've been forced to stay home by abusive partners. But that's not always the case, being at home can be far more fulfilling than slogging away and seeing your kids only at night - I know from experience.

It's hard, but focus on the fact that in the long term, you will be better off, and your kids will benefit greatly from having 2 stable parents who have a decent enough co-parenting relationship.

Op have you considered pensions? It might be that you give him £200k to stop him taking some of your pension. Or conversely if he used to have a higher paying job you might be able to agree to give him less equity in exchange for leaving his pension alone.

I think expecting him to rent while you buy is unfair. I understand grumpiness about splitting assets, and have sympathy, but if you’d be happy for him and your children to have no stability while you do, then that’s not on

He may want to buy somewhere, but he doesn't necessarily need somewhere with 3 bedrooms if the children are staying predominantly with you. Can the children share a room at his house? Would a 2 bed flat suit his requirements or does he absolutely need a 3 bed house?

Oh, I’m really sorry OP, but the courts do not look at whether a person can buy or rent when divorcing. They start at a 50/50 split and then adjust based on where any DC will be living the most, length of marriage and so on.

It doesn’t matter whether the share of equity is enough to buy or rent. So YANBU to think your exH doesn’t need enough money from the divorce to buy another house. But he will most likely be getting a share of the inheritance money you put into the house. He can also get a share of your pension too.

I do think you should get a second opinion because your solicitor shouldn’t be saying your exH needs enough to buy a house. That’s not what the courts even look at.

It is unfair but 50/50 is the starting point. Better not to get married in many circumstances.

If he had a well paid role previously does he have a large pension pot? As taking that into account and depending on the value of yours, that could even things up. He will be forced to declare that.
I feel for you and the situation you are in. But it sounds like you are driven and motivated and will be able to maintain a good lifestyle for yourself long term even if this currently feels very frustrating and unfair.

Whatever you do decide, do it as quickly as you possibly can, otherwise the finances would get worse and worse for you.

Well if situations were reversed you’d be told to absolutely go for share of joint assets and you’re higher earning husband should hand over higher share

don’t see how this is different other than fevers reversed
the law protects the lower earner regardless

He wouldn’t really need a 3 bed house if the children were predominantly with you though. I’m sure it is 50/50, so he would take 50% of the equity?

You shouldn't have any opinions about how he spends his share of the asset split.

The situation that your soon to be ex husband finds himself in is the situation that many women find themselves in upon ddivorce.

He is the lower earner in a short term marriage. I agree that it is unfair to penalize the person who has invested time ,education, and planning to prepare themselves for a higher paying profession or career, but that happens in divorces all the time.

Fevers = genders

Yup it's a big flaw in the UK legal system that we can't protect our assets going into marriage.

My understanding was that it starts at 50/50 and is then adjusted to take various things into account; child care being a main one. Often in these situations the woman walks away with more as she is a lower earner and is the primary care giver, often having sacrificed their earning potential to support the household. If you are going to continue to be the primary care giver I don't see why he should take more than 50%.

For what it's worth I'd totally begrudge handing over more than a fair share to a bloke who is a low earner by choice, and who doesn't take on any child care/household responsibilities. Just think, at least you're cutting the dead weight now before it gets any worse!

I agree. My ex probably did a bit more housework and childcare but he was doing the same job as before he met me so it’s not like he sacrificed anything. I think that’s often the same for women who earn less too (not in every case of course). It’s a bit of a myth that non working spouses are making an equal contribution in every case.