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.

@Bellsbeachwaves the no overnights bit is nothing about money. I don't want him to have overnights because he ignores them, puts his headset on, doesn't change nappies, gets v frustrated with them and he sleeps through them crying at night. It represents me trying to retain a relationship BTW them and their father without exposing them to harm

@BadNomad My mother 'sacrificed' her earning potential to be a SAHM. The court couldn't have cared less, she was actually told that as a 47 year old woman, she needed to get a job and support herself.

The court will not 'punish' the husband for taking a lower pay job and being a 'useless' father. Unless he's actually considered a danger to the children - which means they'd also end up in the family court for them to decide if that's the case - it will be assumed that he's equally capable of looking after the children 50/50.

To me that's very negative and unhelpful but sure, ok. I think there are ways of making things better.

Quite. The two situations aren’t even slightly comparable. Posters who consistently trot out what ‘reverse the sexes’, ‘poor men’ bollocks make themselves look utterly foolish.

Thing is you only hear one side of the story on here.

Remember there are at least 3 sides to every story - the poster's side, their spouse's side and the truth.

So the spouse's side may be along the lines of:
"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 as I have mental health issues. Due to my mental health issues he does all the childcare and housework. He paid a huge deposit out of inheritance and savings as he had lots of parental support unlike myself, so we could buy our home. Due to my mental health I find it difficult to do anything for 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 due to my mental health problems 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?".

You don't get to decide.

Lots of men will fight for 50/50 if they think they are going to lose out so try to stop him fighting you and you both wasting money in family court by being amicable about your joint children in front of him.

Slag him off on here, and to any family and friends who have absolutely no contact with him.

Try to get him to amicably to agree to have them eow.

Some men will step up, some get other family members to step up and some don't bother.

Why would that mean he should get more than 50% of the equity?

I'd like to add I'm not on the husband's 'side' or the OPs. The law won't take 'sides' either. My mother thought they would, and 'punish' my father financially for cheating on her and leaving her for another woman...and for being a 'useless' father. That backfired hugely. As did her running up a huge credit card bill straight after he left (the card was in his name but a card was also issued to my mother) , thinking he'd have to pay it. He proved that he didn't physically have the card to use it, so it was all run up by my mother. The court decided the whole amount would come out of the equity...so my mother ended up 'paying' half.

It’s not really flaw - because no-one is forced to get married, it’s not even socially expected these days.
There are financial benefits to marriage - but people need to balance those against the risks, and not expect to have it all ways.

An aggressive lawyer won’t change the law or outcome. I’d would not say the law favours the lower earner, it just does what marriage does. It tries to make you equal in divorce. The fact they were together for 8 years is probably negated by 3 children.

It’s too late for the OP to suppress her earnings. She could try to argue he is doing that and he could earn more. It depends on how long he has been working in his current role and how hard it would be for him to start earning more.

The judge won’t be swayed by an argument the children cannot move. His concern will be that they are adequately housed and have a relationship with both parents.

We don't know what pension provision either party has.

One of them - and as the OP is more financially savy it is most likely to be her - could have a final salary pension or large pension pot. Courts like clean breaks so it means he would get more equity in return for the OP keeping her pension.

But you don't say what those ways are ...

Op, how long ago did your ex reduce his salary? If it wasn't long ago you may be able to argue his former salary is his earning potential.

I agree about putting some preparation into how the child contact agreement will look. If you have serious reservations about his ability to care for them safely, you need to bring this up now, and gather evidence, you'll bring it up at some point when the children are discussed. There was lots of evidence ( professional services) against my ex and his harm to the children, that bit was clear so his whining about needing a 3 bedroom house to house them was not taken very seriously.

Sorry you're going through this OP.

It's why I won't marry as the higher earning partner with assets. Too risky financially.

My brother is you in his current divorce. He has earned all the money, done the bulk of childcare/ housework and supported his wife who gave up a decent career to set up a business based on her passion which has provided them with some cash for a few nice holidays but very little else. She has been in the home but not actually contributing as you would expect her to towards the family. She has asked for a divorce as no longer wants to be married. He has got to hand over vast quantities and their home (which he has solely paid the mortgage on) and will himself end up in a very small house / flat essentially starting again. No one can prove she didn't contribute whilst being a SAHM. The law is all in her favour as she "gave up work to raise the family". He has eventually made peace with it and is now keen to find the easiest route out to enable him to just move on with his life. He knows there is no point in fighting the system which is very heavily weighted towards the supposed SAHP, he won't even get 50:50. Any gain he thinks could be made by battling it out legally would potentially be negated by the cost of the extra solicitors hours. It sucks!

You are going to lose some of “your” money, no doubt. The aim here should be to get an experienced solicitor who will fight to keep that as low as possible.

Your previous solicitor on house purchase told you that you were making your money a joint asset.

The first thing I’d do is get full financial disclosure sorted. As you say he was a higher earner before, if you’re really lucky he’ll have been a higher earner for longer, and with a better pension scheme, and you can offset against that. Any idea now which of your pensions is more valuable? Are they all DC pensions?

Although it leads to unfairness for individuals, the process is broadly fair. What if his lack of input with the kids since reducing his pay to game all the time was a mental health issue? All he could cope with?

It’s not unfair that he is entitled to exactly what marriage brings, after you both chose marriage.

I’m sympathetic to individuals - my friend lost £150K to an XH earning 80% of her wages whom she divorced after she walked in on him fucking a man from Grindr in their bed 😳

But in general - it’s what you sign up to in marriage.

The good news is, there are no hard rules.
There is nothing to stop you / your solicitor saying, “it’s only 6 years of marriage, the money came from her, and you clearly can earn more - so here’s the offer.” and go realistic but low.

But do sort out pension valuations - could be really helpful for you (or worse, but hopefully helpful).

Maybe have a look at whether you can reduce your savings in an acceptable way. Check with solicitor, but if you use childcare, you might be able to pay a year up front, or have £x ringfenced not as savings but as nanny salary account. Anything to stop the savings being counted and split!

I am in a similar situation in that I paid the deposit for my current house. My ex paid none of the mortgage and only a contribution towards bills. The house is in my name. When he inherited I gave him the opportunity to pay off some of the mortgage and go on the deeds but he wasn’t interested. That money is now gone. He gave up a well paid job to study but did nothing with it. He is self employed with low income. He has equal or greater earning potential compared to me but ‘likes working for himself’.

Since he moved out, he lives with a woman who owns her own home and he just makes a contribution to bills like he did with me.

We split almost 5 years ago but are still not divorced. He hasn’t asked for money. We floated the idea early on of splitting the increase in equity during the time we were in the house together which I would be happy with. It won’t look fair to a court though and I worry it might not get approved.

The advice about your ex needing to be able to buy a house doesn’t sound right though. In our case my ex wouldn’t be able to get a mortgage due to his low income regardless of what I give him (and wouldn’t have enough for him to buy outright). Anyway he doesn’t need to buy a house as he has a woman who already has one 😒

Why should we be penalised for their poor decisions? When I met my ex, he had a good job and was on a good career path. Had a good pension and a house. He wanted to keep our finances separate. I agreed. He moved in with me. The equity from his house was poorly invested by him and is long gone. His inheritance the same. Meanwhile I have worked, studied, been promoted, kept a roof over our heads and will move heaven and earth to provide for DS as I will continue to do. Ex pays nothing since we split and does not have DS overnight.

I am worried about what might happen with finances and so we are still married - at least this way, DS and I have kept our home for now. To give him anything more than a few thousand I will need to sell as I can’t afford to remortgage now the bills have gone up.

I feel for you OP. The law seems to be set up to protect SAHMs who give up earning to raise children and should not be penalised for it. It does not help those whose husbands turn out to be someone else after you marry them. Leaving the earning and caring to you and contributing little and less.

As others have said, maybe test the waters and see what he wants. If he will take £40-50k it might be something you are both happy with. I am not sure of the logistics, of getting this approved by a court though. Good luck.

If it ends up that DH is indeed entitled to a larger share of the equity in order to buy a home for himself and the DC when has has them, is there a way of protecting that asset for the future for the benefit of the current DC only? I'd concerned that DH could re-marry and have further DC, and that his new family would be entitled to the house paid for from the divorce settlement which is mostly OP's money.

Get a second opinion- I got a second opinion and it was quite a bit different to the first one!

There's a lot of misinformation on this thread. It's not true that starting point is 50-50 and my house did not become a joint asset after I got married. Still, the lower earner/saver is favoured and how they came to have less money is not considered. In my own case, I did have to pay out a lot of my savings but the split was nowhere near 50-50.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD SHE DO THAT?

No its quite simple.

You buy as tenants in common not joint tenants and have a deed of trust drawn up.

@yossell it could be helpful - more for other women reading this than the OP - to explain a bit more why your house was not considered a joint asset.

For example, had you already purchased it before marriage? It certainly can make a difference if you don’t mix money. For example, if you have an inheritance sat in its own account untouched, there’s a stronger chance to exclude it than if you’ve used it as an un-ringfenced deposit on a house in joint names, with a joint mortgage, held as joint tenants, lived in by both of you.

Most things aren’t “quite simple” though.

Sure, the process of owning a house as Tenants in Common with a Deed of Trust for the deposit is really really simple bash stuff.

Works fairly simple with death or split of an unmarried couple.

But not divorce. You have no guarantee of “simply” ring fencing that deposit entirely outwith the finances considered. It’s not bad thing to have done it, it shows the intention of the parties to treat it separately. But a judge can still decide that it’s relevant to the overall financial picture - which means it’s effectively not longer ringfenced at all.

This is why standard advice on Mumsnet is to protect yourself financially by marriage. However, marriage really only protects the lower earner and the one who contributed less to joint assets. It cuts both ways, male and female.

Thank you for all the frank and to the point posts. It's my fault - I went into a contract and now I don't like the terms of the contract. I get it. I can't do anything about that other than try and get the most favourable terms.

But for the people saying oh if the sexes were reversed, or suggesting he still lives with me, or one person saying I sound controlling....whatever....surely when you enter a marriage you also enter it on the understanding that you will support one another, that you will build a life together. He has been cruel and neglectful. He has actively reduced his support over the years in every way - financial, emotional, practical. I am a single mum in so many ways.

He entered the marriage 6 years ago with no savings, no property, and has put in zero effort for years. And he's walking away with 3 kids who love him (despite him doing nothing but shout at them), £150k minimum, poss financial support, a car I bought outright etc He's done alright out of it all.

This is all his own making. I have tried everything - get him to therapy, him taking a lesser paid job to help his MH, agreeing that he doesn't need to do night wakes because no sleep affects him....but I see now there is nothing to do to change things.