DB divorcing...advice needed on financial agreement

[PetraDelphiki]

So DB is divorcing SIL (her choice)

She has moved out to parents but is in and out of marital home.

Current hope is that DB will buy her out (more mortgage plus family help)...which would give her enough to buy something big enough (just) for her and kids if she doesn’t take on extra debt (which he would be doing)...but obviously won’t be as nice as marital home (as would be worth half as much). FWIW they are 50/50 tenants in common, not sure how much equity is there. Neither has huge savings afaik.

Assuming that they agree this, and come to a fair division of joint costs (eg childcare for baby so baby doesn’t have different care on different days)...and assuming they have 50/50 residence (which would be the aim), would a judge interfere with their agreement?

Both work effectively full time on similar salaries...not sure about pensions but will suggest they value/discuss,,.

Thoughts? In the interest of not giving lawyers more money than possible I want to be able to pass on as much info as I can...

Were they married? Guessing so.

Why is there the mention of a judge and court?? No need for that if amicable, relatively.

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your specifc q, but sure someone will be along soon, who does.

What about pensions? That is the other big sticking point. Regardless of her having a good salary now, if she has missed out on pension contributions owing to childcare responsibilities then there needs to be an adjustment in recognition of her reduced pension income.

Yes married, and I only mentioned judge because I thought the financial agreement had to be agreed by a judge...could be my misunderstanding

Generally if a couple agree and the settlement looks fair-ish, then no-one intervenes on that. And, 50/50 on all aspects looks fair, at least at first glance.

Problems can occur when one party sees a solicitor and gets the impression that they can (or should) do better.

Thank you!

And another question...splitting the house equally would mean that neither can afford a house big enough for parent plus kids without moving out of the area ...what on earth is supposed to happen in this situation?

Anyone?

The law cannot make funds stretch further than they reach. In such situations something has to give -- only one parent having a house large enough (which is quite typical, though inconsistent with a 50/50 parenting approach though true 50/50 remains rare), or moving out of the area, or living in cramped circumstances.

Yeah I think that (sadly) compromise living areangements have to be made. 2 separate homes are probably not, physically, going to be as nice as one marital home. That's just the way it is in places where housing is expensive and eats all of your take-home. It really sucks but it is fortunate really that both can afford suitable-ish Properties for themselves and the children. They must be relaticely comfortable, financially.

It sounds like the ex will have less choice though, if she doesn't have family help to boost her capital or repayments.

It is such a moral and financial minefield!

I am in a similar position although neither me nor ex's parents can help with buyouts so we have to sell. I've just sort of accepted that we will both have lesser houses but (for me) it is a price worth paying because a house is not a home if some of the people are miserable. My happiest times were in a sweatbox studio in a shitty part of london. I loved that place.
However... it is very different with kids. They see it as a hge loss and a symbol of their lives changing for the worse. And that is hard to stomach.

Apologies for the typos.

Yes it’s just so hard for the kids... and DB who was hit with this out of the blue.

I wonder is it better to stay in the area for school etc or move so they can get nicer houses?

Or is there anyway one of them could argue against 50/50 because it would mean too much change for the kids and therefore get to keep the house? Or does trying that just feed lawyers for no benefit?