When we agreed to separate, it was on the basis that I can afford to buy him out of the house (valuation - shared debts+remaining mortgage and split the rest).
This works out well for me because I can keep the children safe and at the same school. It's not a huge house.
He would then have a lump sum of equity to save/use as a chunky deposit.
Because he's self employed and not earned anything for years, it'll be a couple of years before he can Get a mortgage. He's asked me to be guarantor on a rental place and pay the first 3 months rent because he wants to leave asap.
Because the children seem to be taking it OK, he's suggested that we'd both get a better deal if we sold the house and split the remains. Firstly, because he's still here, it hasn't fully sunk in with children yet. Secondly, I can't see how this would make either of us more money (but cause plenty of disruption to children, which I don't want to do).
I am the higher earner; he won't be paying maintenance or having the children for more than occasional stays.
I am getting more legal advice, understand that I may have to pay him some maintenance for fixed period until he gets on his feet earning (and I want a clean break consent order for future safety!).
Am I missing anything? Other than the potential of someone coming along and starting a bidding war on the house (which he imagines will happen, but I dont), how would he end up with more than our current plan would give him?
Also, with his self employed business, if it doesn't take off as he anticipates, but chooses not to get employment (the man wouldn't even get a job stacking supermarket shelves when I was pregnant and stressed about money!), surely I can't be expected to finance him for long?