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.

Yes, this. You absolutely are not an idiot at all. It's virtually impossible to ring fence anything once married.

I'm afraid that assets from marriage, especially when DC are involved, start from a point of 50:50 which is then balanced out so both leave the marriage in broadly the same position. It sucks when you are the one with all the equity/higher earner, but it's what the law considers fair.

On MN you see countless threads where women are primary carers for DC and leave the workforce/are the lower paid partner and generally people will tell them how they are entitled to more than 50% because they need to set themselves up in a home for the DC.

What you should do is discuss custody arrangements for DC early on in these financial discussions as that can impact the financial split. If he wants 50:50 then he will more likely get a larger portion, but if it's going to be EOW then you have a case to argue it down.

Also watch out for spousal support.

Is the solicitor maybe thinking to give ex more of the equity so he doesn't go after your pension? It's bizarre otherwise. He's not a SAHP, he hasn't sacrificed a career to raise children, therefore he doesn't need compensated for that. He's earning what he wants to earn.

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.

Absolutely. The number of women on MN who make out that the only reason they’re not a rocket scientist on £500k was because they were ‘facilitating their husband’s career’ is laughable. The fact that they weren’t doing any such thing, or on a pathway to any such thing, prior to marriage seems to totally escape them.

Theres nothing whatsoever wrong with making a choice not to work full time and to be at home with kids but IMO most women vastly, vastly overestimate the financial value of that to the household compared to having two parents working in reasonable careers.

What the OP is experiencing is probably different to most cases as he husband hasn’t taken on the bulk of domestic work but other than that it’s basically the same situation that happens day in day out with the genders reversed. And people wonder why many men don’t want to marry!

You don't know what he will accept until you ask him, & I appreciate that you might not yet want to show him the hand you are thinking of playing.

So gather your documented evidence, then shop around for the fiercest, pro-woman lawyer you can afford, & ensure they are experienced in representing higher-earning wives with shirking husbands.
While that lawyer won't be concerned with the emotional side, you need to ensure that they are totally on board with your feelings:
I just don't know if I can stomach that. Handing over £200k of my savings and family money to someone who sits around in a dressing gown playing video games with teenagers on a headset and ignores his own children.
& are prepared to protect your best interests in what might become a protracted negotiation.

As to this - How does he get himself legal representation? - your sole job concerned HIS legal representation is to establish how strong or weak it is. You are not to give a flying fuck about how he gets it or how much it costs him. Your job is to ensure that your lawyer is cannier, more experienced, & better than his.

With regard to your question Do the settlements always look at what someone can BUY? - not always, no.
I divorced 15 years ago, in a similar situation to yours except no shared kids, just his adult child.
Like you, I didn't ringfence my sole deposit on the marital home. Like you, I was paying the lion's share of mortgage, bills & expenses - culminating in me paying 100% of everything.
I ended up paying him off (he got about 25%). Post-divorce, I took my share forward into another property. He took his - which was enough for a substantial deposit on a small house or flat - & pissed it up against the wall.
The process was complicated by an Injunction, as my lawyer also spotted the coercive control & financial abuse, & woke me up to the fact that issuing death threats to your wife then faking suicide attempts when that didn't stop her still wanting to divorce, was grounds to remove him from both the marital home & proximity to me.
At no point did his lawyer or the judge even mention whether his share would be enough to buy him a house. It was not material to the case - Ex was an adult who could make his own decisions about what to do with his share.

Your case will be complicated by your 3 young DC.
Which is why you need your fierce lawyer, because you will need to demonstrate that he deliberately took a lower paid role, telling you he could then be in better mental health & more hands-on with his children & household - but then did no such thing, & played headset games for hours each day while ignoring his children. You will need to evidence how YOU continued to be the near-sole childcare provider, taking them to appointments, school run, activities etc. How YOU were the one who food shopped, cooked, played with them ... itemise everything, & evidence it with diaries, contacts etc.

Once you have that lawyer in place, you will start to feel more confident, & will be in a position to dangle an offer to your H. You know him best - if he is the type to think "yeah, free money & I can walk away from ALL the drudgery of family life & childraising", you may have a good chance of retaining a hell of a lot more of the money you poured into this marriage. If he wants to be that kind of Disney Dad with no overnights you might even be able to retain the family home & send him on his way with a cash payment.
If he wants to fight for more, you may have to sell the house - BUT you can still argue for being the resident parent, limited or no overnights hence NO financial contribution from him. He might find that attractive.

@BadNomad It's not about 'compensating' the husband for his lower earning, lack of savings etc...it's purely splitting the assets as equally as possible. Agreeing not to touch a pension but getting more of the available equity is very common...it was the case in my divorce 30 years ago. My ex husband had a very good pension, I had none...I agreed that I would take all the available equity (not much, we'd only owned the house 3 years and had no other savings, etc) and not touch his pension. I accepted what was ultimately less than 50/50 because I wanted a quick divorce.

How long have you owned the house? If you bought it a while ago and put £280k in there should be more equity now as house prices have risen. Obviously if you only bought it a few months ago that won't be relevant but maybe you need to get a valuation.

Apologies OP - missed the main point in my long ramble - we were married for 5 years.

19 year total relationship, but clear evidence that all the assets were 80 - 100% paid for by me.

35 years ago is not now, & my divorce case was based on 2 main points - 1) clear evidence of me paying for everything while he refused to work 2) coercive control & financial abuse, which is of course all about the behaviour.

Also - OP's H might hire a shit lawyer instead of a shit hot one
Mine did.

All excellent points.

OP - you need to grit your teeth & get into the mindset of point 1).
This IS going to cost you: your choice of lawyer will dictate how much.

"I am divorcing my husband who earns more than twice what i do. He is insisting that I rent rather than buy a house after divorce so he doesn't have to give me as much money, AIBU to think this is unfair and controlling".

We pay for nursery and nannies because despite DH working fewer hours he doesn't look after them

Galling - but excellent evidence: make sure you document it for your lawyer.

That you agreed to a lower joint household income, but then were forced to pay over the odds because H refused to care for his own children.

This should help you on 2 fronts: firstly, in arguing the case for you to be sole resident parent, secondly, that you contributions remained higher in both financial AND parental terms.

And if he doesn't do overnights, he doesn't need a 3 bed house, does he?

Yes this. Not a good look.

Sorry OP but I think that advice is correct. My DB got divorced a few years ago (his ex was a professional who chose not to work during the marriage and then had an affair and left him). They had 3 kids who are 50/50. She does very little for them. She got 85% of the equity plus maintenance for the kids (that she didn’t spend on them).

when this was happening I thought if id known how the law works and was the higher earner, id never get married.

@whattodo1975 "I'm divorcing my husband who earns twice as much as I do because I quit my high earning job and took a low paying job so that I can play video games. I do fuck all round the house and I'm not the primary carer for our children, they do all that bless them. Am I a cheeky fucker for wanting more than half in the divorce so that I can buy a house and continue to coast of their coattails?"

My compensating comment was about SAHPs who sacrifice their earning potential to raise children. They are the people who get a higher % during a split. The OP's ex isn't one of them, therefore he shouldn't expect more than 50%.

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 doesn't matter if anybody else thinks this is fair.
All that matters is what your H thinks.

When you are ready - & for goodness sake don't pre-empt ANY talk of divorce until you have documented EVERYTHING & it is safely stored at your lawyer's office - you will be able to put offers to him & find out at what point he 'bites'.

My own lawyer told me "you won't get away with paying him nothing, despite the fact that he has contributed nothing." (I hadn't expected to, but she was ensuring my expectations were in line with reality).

So hang on to the fact that you are going to need to invest in getting rid of him, & that it will be money well spent.

OP you should want him to do overnights for the children's sake. You should want him to up his game wrt looking after them for the children's sake. You should want a fair outcome which might include him working more but might also include you splitting the equity in his favour for the children's sake.

This whole, let's be strategic and keep the kids more so we can prove what an arse he is and keep more money is indicative of a less than fair attitude within you I'm afraid.

my ideal would be me remortgage the house and buying him out of the house with say £50k, he can keep the car, not allowing overnights, and me expecting no maintance or access to his pension

Wow you are letting him off lightly offering him no maintenance payments, no overnights, 50k and the car. Gosh this bloke doesn't know how lucky he is. You deserve better than him op. Speak to several solicitors see what the options are. If you can get him to agree to what you want that you have stated above then that is great for you.

Oh come off it.

What's the betting that if he had his DC for overnights, he'd just spend the time wearing his headset & gaming? It's what he does now - why would he change?

That's not legal any more.

There is £280k equity and she wants to offer £50k. That equity is joint, no matter where it came from. It would be a terrible deal for him and I would presume OP can change her mind about no maintenance at any point.

I disagree with the advice of @GirlsNightOut33.

Documenting childcare doesn't matter in most circumstances unless e.g. you're trying to show why there's no way he can cope with equal residency so therefore you need a bigger share of assets to reflect it.

Most of all though, getting an aggressive lawyer is SO much more likely to backfire in this situation. You will quickly burn through more money than you'll gain, sour what needs to be a long term co-parenting relationship, and probably push your DC onto his 'side' (and any therapist will tell you, there shouldn't be sides when it comes to parents)

Better to get good legal advice, ensure full financial disclosure on both sides, sort with a mediator.

@PopitPop yes, in the end our recommended split was relatively equal, balancing my higher earning power with the fact that I'd also have the kids more, and that I'd brought in more. Do bear in mind that we never went to court, but this was very much informed by legal views. Also, time does heal wounds, and it's worth it to be free and to know that your kids have two solvent parents who don't hate each other.

I think you mean -

"I am divorcing my husband who earns more than twice what i do. I used to earn the same as him, but I took on a lower paid job so I could have an easier life and play video games at home. He does all the childcare, housework and paid a huge deposit so we could buy our home. I don't really bother with my children. He only wants to give me 50% of the equity of the house! I didn't bother to save any of my money so I will only be able to rent a house for my kids to come stay occasionally. AIBU to think this is unfair and controlling?".

Ugh, he’s revolting. I hope you find a solicitor to help you get as much of your money as possible. He works, he can look after himself and he doesn’t need (or deserve) to be able to buy.

You put down 280k deposit? The value of the house hasn’t risen at all since you bought it?