Do I go to court

[MassiveMug]

My dh and I came to a financial agreement out of court, we have sol involved. I settled on 80% capital from the house as a healthy deposit for a house for me and our 2ds and a small mortgage.

The sol have just drawn up the court order ready for it all to be sent to court on what we have agreed. Problem is, I now can’t get a mortgage and the equity I will get is not enough to buy anything half decent for us whilst he stays on in this big 4 bed house to himself.

I have put a hold on the order being sent off to court whilst I think about what to do. I could rent but that’s very expensive and I don’t work and trying to get a job is near on impossible, or do I take him to court for more money or even the house but knowing that this won’t be resolved for at least another year, hugh sol bill and would I be rewarded with anymore? Any advice please?

If OP's ex can afford to buy her out and give 80% of the equity what difference does it make if he ends up with a house bigger than he needs?

Court costs and legal fees will be deducted from assets before any split is made. Thereby reducing the available equity in property. Also it may take time to sell the house and price may have to be reduced? Again reducing the equity.

.

She can of course easily downsize or buy something more within her affordability range but it's clear she just wants to stiff her ex for more so she has zero mortage to pay

It's good digging and spiteful. She clearly is seeking an easy divorced life of her STBXH expense

Perfect;y summed up.

It's not your ExH's fault you can't afford the size property that you want

Correct. Settlements are based on NEEDS. Wants, wishes, greed, revenge and trying to get one over the other partner does not enter the equation.

If OP's ex can afford to buy her out and give 80% of the equity what difference does it make if he ends up with a house bigger than he needs?

At the moment this arrangement doesn’t meet the children’s needs. So that does make a difference. Again, not on a legal point but what kind of parent would insist on keeping a huge house that they don’t need and seeing their children cramped into a tiny place or in a crappy area or both.

There is not nearly enough information in this thread to determine whether the OP is likely to get more than 80% of the equity (and indeed how much that 80% is in cash terms).

Have I missed a post somewhere? Where has the OP said she can afford a house she needs but wants a bigger one?

Legalities aside, how can it be moral for the children to be living in a much smaller house while the non resident parent rattled around a huge house alone

Because the Non Resident Parent was able to buy her out.

Maybe the Non Resident Parent has a new partner who has children from a previous relationship? Maybe the new partner is pregnant with his child? Maybe the 2 children will stay with their father?

Suggest MissMalice reads their own post which read:

Unless you know more than the OP is written here, you cannot make those statements with any confidence

Hilarious.

The OP has already said the children will be staying with her.

If you’re really suggesting that the needs of a new partner’s children go above the needs of the children of the marriage then there’s nothing further for me to add

@Ss770640
She should have maybe thought about her ability to borrow before leaving the marriage
How ridiculous! So OP who appears to be a carer from their joint child(rental?) should be forced to remain in an unhappy marriage because she can't borrow much/any money for a mortgage on the basis that she is a carer? Are you seriously suggesting that a woman should be trapped like this? Disgusting!

She can of course easily downsize or buy something more within her affordability range but it's clear she just wants to stiff her ex for more so she has zero mortage to pay
How do you know that she can afford to downsize into a house that still meets her and her DC's needs? I actually read her posts as even with the 80% of the equity she will still wouldn't be able to afford suitable accommodation. She hasn't said that she wanted a mansion or even a house equivalent to her ex, but that she thought it was intrinsically unfair that she and their joint children should be forced to live in unsuitable accommodation whilst her ex could afford to retain the 4 bed house. This instinctively doesn't seem like a very fair division of assets considering she is and will continue to be primarily response for the children's care and this will have massively impacted her ability to build a career and consequently her earnings.

@MassiveMug

How old are the children?

How long have you taken off work to look after them?

What is your usual line of work?

How long was the marriage?

To MissMalice

Father’s are responsible for all their children even if they are with different mothers.

To BumpityBumper

If one partner can afford to buy the other one out that’s the end of the discussion in my view.

My ex tried the same sob story at final hearing. Even tried to argue she needed a 3 bedroom house so the 22 year old daughter had a bedroom. Judge stated that at age 22 the daughter was irrelevant. That’s when ex blurted out:

Divorce was not my idea. It was his. Why should I be worse off because he divorced me?

Judge stated that in our case the reason for the divorce was not relevant to the settlement. Even asked ex if she would downsize to a smaller house and give me a refund if her daughter decided she wanted to live elsewhere.

Settlements are based on NEEDS as determined by the courts. Wants, wishes and trying to outdo the other partner do not enter the equation.

MissedTheBoatAgain
If one partner can afford to buy the other one out that’s the end of the discussion in my view
To a certain extent I agree with you, but I think the sticking point is what exactly is OP's ex trying to buy her out on and how much money should he pay to do this. Ultimately she could have rights to spousal maintenance, the house and his pension especially due to the level of sacrifce she has made and will continue to make to care for their DC. There is no indisputable way to calculate what this amount should be and how it should be paid.

As I said in my post, I don't think this is about OP wanting to maintain an extravagant standard of living but understandably she doesn't want to be unfairly detrimented for effectively agreeing to care for their mutual child. OP's ex may well want a clean break agreement that limits his liability but when we are talking about a child with ongoing needs that will disproportionately impact one parent then this complicates things significantly.

To Bumpity

Not possible for one partner to be awarded more assets than actually exist. If a clean break is possible the courts are obliged to make such an order.

OP,

Nobody can advise you based on the information posted here. Your solicitor will have all the facts and can tell you if you would get a better deal if you go to court. It will be based on needs not wants. There are quite a few options and combinations that come into play. Some, spousal maintenance or a mesher, will keep you tied to the ex financially and may just defer a problem until you are older. Clean breaks enable you both to rebuild your finances whilst you are still young enough to do so. I think your ex sees that and his ask is based on that. Keep the pension and pay off the mortgage will give him a nice old age.

The key question is to what extent you can improve your income. If that is not possible now, will it ever be possible. What happens when your children are 18. You absolutely need to be 100% mortgage free and have 100% ownership of the house if you aren’t able to work for the foreseeable future.

Even if solicitors have all the facts they won’t be able to say with certainty what the courts will order. Big risk of involving courts is that they may make an order that neither partner wanted, but they will still charge for the privilege.

Her solicitor will advise her of the risk too.

The advice here is based on projection, assumption and personal experience. A solicitor who knows the case, the law and the courts can give her the best advice. There are limits to what he or she can get. Her solicitor will confirm these. If she isn’t feasibly going to get much more the solicitor can tell her that. He can also point out that he ex may have a lot to lose in court and could well settle to avoid going there.

He also knows the way the local courts work and likely outcome.

Thanks for all the replies, I’ve only just read them.

Our DC are 10 and 7 and I am a carer for our 10yr old for a mild disability but he is still able to go to mainstream school.

I’m not wanting to buy a mansion, just a nice 3 bed in a decent area which I’m struggling to get without a mortgage. This does NOT make me a gold digger.

I’ve not worked for 10yrs as I’ve been a sahm so he could continue with his career as well and. If I’m getting punished for that as I’m struggling to find work.

Just to add as well, he earns 90k a year.

How much equity is 80%

With my 80% and share of savings I’m getting 150k

Are you getting 80% the value of the house, or 80% of the equity?

Could you get someone eg a parent to be a guarantor on mortgage. I am a carer for disabled child and expect to get majority share house not least as I will most likely have my disabled son living with me until I die. I do manage to work but is not easy due lack of disabled childcare - for those saying just get a job try when no after school or holiday childcare will have your child. I expect your benefits will cover the mortgage but the bank just won't accept them as governments can remove them. So a guarantor may be sensible. You might be entitled to some spousal maintenance as well given your ability to earn is affected by your caring responsibilities. People think when you split that you just look back at past contributions but I will be sacrificing my career and pension for many years to come while my stbxh work is unaffected by lack of childcare or medical appointments it's entirely fair for future care of a disabled child of the family to be taken into account and not unreasonable for you to get 100% house especially if the disability means (as it does in mine) that the children need their own rooms. People have no idea how hard being a single parent to disabled children is and shouldn't judge. Maybe they should consider why your ex isn't cutting his work hours 50% to help out with the caring so you can work and afford a mortgage before implying you are the greedy one. I have to be home by 3.30 every day to meet the taxi from the special school there's no option of working longer hours

Do you have any idea what his pension is. At that salary he could be saving quite a bit, pension wise. Certainly more than the c£180-90k equity. Do you have an estimate of the value. That will be crucial in 2 ways. One leverage to get him to up his offer as he would have too much to lose in court. Two it might actually be worth going to court as you will get a better settlement even with fees.

as you will get a better settlement even with fees

Pure crystal ball that remark. One poster indicated £20K for courts. Mine was was £35K. If OP equity and savings are approximately £150K the legal costs represent a large chunk and there is no certainty that courts will make an order that is more favourable than offer that has already been made.

Can’t see the courts agreeing to a slice of the ex husbands pension if ex wife is getting 80% of equity from house.

What many poster seem to have forgotten is that ex husband has needs too such as; roof over his head, clothes to wear and food to eat. If he is left with zero how does he survive?

Also what many forget is that if ex wife is main parent with care she will be entitled to the following weekly amounts:

Child Maintenance £205 based on £90K earnings
Child benefit £34
Child tax credit £64
Working tax credits if working part time £70

£373 per week in total.

Get a job so you can get the mortgage and after you get it, quit.

Missedtheboat.

If the OP knows the value of the pension and it is worth a lot, then it is not a crystal ball issue. The reality is that some people have very large pensions, in the 7 figure park and they will do anything to protect them. Easily paying out more than £150k.

Please dont selectively quotes statements that have been qualified with a previous remark and them dismissing them. I asked the OP if she knows the value of the pension as that could help steer her decision. If it is £200k then she doesn’t have a lot of leverage. If it’s £900k then she does.