Divorcing and annoyed about losing equity

[Mumof3confused]

Just coming in here to vent a bit. I was quite smart with my property investments in my 20’s and ended up bailing out my H when he found himself in negative equity after the 2007 crash. We married in 2011 and when we bought a house, put in about £200k into the deposit. Of course I never envisaged us splitting but we now have about £900k equity thanks to me working my socks off to fund a £260k extension on our house (he also works FT so it’s not a case of Stay at hime parent to allow me to further my career).

Just a bit pissed off that he takes half of the equity when he’s been riding on my coattails for the duration of our marriage. I know that’s what he’s entitled to but right now that feels unfair because I’d love to keep the house for the sake of the children’s stability but won’t be able to with this amount of equity. And we only have the equity because I sorted the bloody extension which he didn’t even have anything to do with, none of the planning, stress or financing - nothing.

should say she was then held accountable for half that debt as it was done whilst still married and in sam house (he was planning on ditching but she left before he was ready - shame)

@forcedfun

"And the reason was because "Women stayed at home to look after the children and gave up their careers" which is total bullshit."

But surely that absolutely was the reason in a lot of cases? I mean I out earn my exH, but I am lucky that working laws and practices had moved on and allowed me a long maternity leave etc. Historically though it was far harder for women to keep a career going.

Sorry, no. Every woman had the opportunity to go back to work. In the 80s when there was no such thing as maternity leave, and childcare was still expensive, my mum took 6 months out of work, lived on savings they'd accumulated, then went back to full time work whilst forking out 60%+ of her wages on childcare.

Every woman has a choice to stay home or work.

@smurfsss that "choice" is surely much easier to make now People can work flexibly and have a long maternity leave.

My point is I think the courts are shifting their opinions precisely because keeping /returning to a career is more possible now.
(Assuming children don't have additional needs of course. And assuming there is no abuse in the relationship)

The choice isn't t much of a choice if you are doing two jobs, including the home one practically alone, and on top of that your job involves travel.

@smurfsss
You seem to have an axe to grind but you're ignoring the reality.
Couple agree that one of them will not work while the kids are young (several reasons why this may be be preferred option). Even now with more flexible working some couples may agree that one of them will not work.
Once that decision is made then there is no getting away from the fact that the one who comes out of the workplace will be unlikely to realise the same earning potential as before.
It's not about the woman's choice, it's the couple's choice and fortunately this is recognised in divorce settlements.
To be fair to the OP, they have recognised this. However in OPs case it seems like they are the higher earner and taking on more of the childcare. I would hope the courts would recognise this although I think that after making sure the children are adequately housed they do try to make things relatively equal between the two parties in a longer marriage.

There is no “one size fits all” each case is decided by negotiation or ultimately the courts, sometimes it’s amicable, sometimes it’s grudging. It’s pretty well known what marriage or civil partnership means, have your eyes open when you get spliced.

[quote forcedfun]@smurfsss that "choice" is surely much easier to make now People can work flexibly and have a long maternity leave.

My point is I think the courts are shifting their opinions precisely because keeping /returning to a career is more possible now.
(Assuming children don't have additional needs of course. And assuming there is no abuse in the relationship)[/quote]
Indeed, careers are much more flexible these days. If you go back to the 1980s, there used to be a lot more flabby middle management in organisations and the general idea was that you joined a firm and slowly worked your way up. So if you took 10 years or more out of the workplace to bring up kids, the expectation was that you'd start back at the bottom and never get anywhere near the top whilst your ex would carry on climbing the corporate ladder. It was also true that women were less likely to get promoted or be treated (and paid) equally, especially if they had children.

That view is completely redundant now of course because people move around to rise to the top and couples tend to share childcare responsibilities a lot more. This is just one of many social and government policy changes that are having a big impact on divorce settlements, especially for younger people as millennials start hitting 40 and having divorces:

1. Universal credit rules have rendered spousal maintenance pointless in huge numbers of cases because spousal reduces UC £ for £;

2. The price of housing is so out of reach that a lot of divorcing couples now own a lot less of their house by age 40. This not only makes giving the house to the weaker financial party extremely unfair because it is no longer possible to assume the stronger financial party will be able to buy again, but it has also made Mesher orders far less practical because the weaker financial party cannot get a mortgage big enough to take their ex off the FMH;

3. It is much easier to start a career and to be flexible in that career from a more junior level, making claims by SAHPs that they cannot work at least some hours once DCs are in school dubious to say the least. This also kicks against spousal maintenance;

4. CMS has been around for a while now but it also made expectations of maintenance after the children reached 18 much less likely because it is now very clear what is for the children and what is for the maintained adult (which is normally not very much and not for very long).

I think if house prices carry on rising, we will find equity splits that don't stick to a strict 50/50 less and less likely too. I don't see a system of law that renders the stronger financial party unable to own their home for the rest of their life in order that the weaker party can do so for the stability needed normally for no more than a decade to stand up to the laws that demand fair outcomes for divorcing couples.

You are still ignoring that couples can decide together that one of them will be a sahp. The sahp needs (and fortunately gets) that protection from marriage.
You're also in cloud cuckoo land if you think the majority of careers, let alone jobs, are childcare friendly. Those that are tend to be part-time and guess what, career prospects are affected.

@oviraptor21

You are still ignoring that couples can decide together that one of them will be a sahp. The sahp needs (and fortunately gets) that protection from marriage. You're also in cloud cuckoo land if you think the majority of careers, let alone jobs, are childcare friendly. Those that are tend to be part-time and guess what, career prospects are affected.

That might have been true once. It's less true now, especially since the pandemic. Since the pandemic, two important things certainly changed for me, the traditional "breadwinner":

1. Slowly over time I've assumed responsibility for most of the school pickups and afternoon childcare, because the times I'm expected to work have become a lot more flexible since working from home most of the time;

2. I've learned just how little being a stay at home parent can involve once the children go to school. That's not to say all SAHPs are lazy, only that they can choose to be and get away with it. My STBXW - who is meant to be the SAHM - is out of the house a lot these days and I've picked up most of the housework and most of the childcare. It fits around a full time job.

What is probably closer to the truth is that it's hard to establish a career part time or with flexible hours. SAHPs who cannot adjust tend to be people who didn't bother even trying to have a career before children and therefore only find themselves having to establish themselves after divorce.

Actually @FutureExH, the pandemic has had the opposite effect in women, setting women back 25 years.
Why? Because, surprise surprise, they were still the ones who ended up looking after the dcs during all the lockdowns etc… They were the ones who stopped working because the presssure of homeschooling children whilst also wfh wasn’t manageable.

And now they are the ones who wfh but are expected to drop off and pick up the dcs so the family doesn’t pay for childcare. But somehow they are also expected to fit their 7 hours of work into the day (which means many women either end up working whilst keeping an eye on the dcs - more pressure or end up working once the dcs are in bed.

I don’t think that the pamdemic has been a gift to mothers tbh.

@LostForIdeas

Actually *@FutureExH*, the pandemic has had the opposite effect in women, setting women back 25 years. Why? Because, surprise surprise, they were still the ones who ended up looking after the dcs during all the lockdowns etc… They were the ones who stopped working because the presssure of homeschooling children whilst also wfh wasn’t manageable.

And now they are the ones who wfh but are expected to drop off and pick up the dcs so the family doesn’t pay for childcare. But somehow they are also expected to fit their 7 hours of work into the day (which means many women either end up working whilst keeping an eye on the dcs - more pressure or end up working once the dcs are in bed.

I don’t think that the pamdemic has been a gift to mothers tbh.

That's not what happened in my household. But this is exactly the problem isn't it? Lazy assumptions about how households have been managed such as the one you put forward above. The only thing that has changed in my office is that both men and women are a lot less likely to accept meetings at 3pm than they used to because things have become more flexible!

My STBXW is meant to be a SAHP but it's ME who does the school pickups and it's ME who does most of the childcare. But I will not be remotely surprised in divorce if that all counts for nothing because of the kind of lazy assumptions made about the spouse who doesn't work.

And this is what's really key. Courts should actually learn the difference between a SAHP and a spouse who just doesn't work.

But the lazy assumptions you are making are fine of course.

@oviraptor21

But the lazy assumptions you are making are fine of course.

I haven't made any such assumptions, which is why you've provided no examples.

Two for starters:

That's not to say all SAHPs are lazy, only that they can choose to be and get away with it.

SAHPs who cannot adjust tend to be people who didn't bother even trying to have a career before children

And the lazy assumption that the wife alone chooses to be the SAHP rather than it being a joint decision.

Is that enough examples for you?
You feel hard done by your ex. Fine .... you could well be right about that. But stop assuming that that's the way that SAHPing always goes.

And apologies to OP, who I hope is long gone(!) for the massive thread derail. I will try to resist the temptation to respond again!

@oviraptor21

Two for starters:

That's not to say all SAHPs are lazy, only that they can choose to be and get away with it.

SAHPs who cannot adjust tend to be people who didn't bother even trying to have a career before children

And the lazy assumption that the wife alone chooses to be the SAHP rather than it being a joint decision.

Is that enough examples for you?
You feel hard done by your ex. Fine .... you could well be right about that. But stop assuming that that's the way that SAHPing always goes.

And apologies to OP, who I hope is long gone(!) for the massive thread derail. I will try to resist the temptation to respond again!

Okay, more lazy thinking from you!

1. Prove to me that you can't be a parent who doesn't work and then get a nice divorce settlement. My grandma basically neglected her kids and was out all hours of the day and still got most of the assets and maintenance for life. To call her a SAHP would be a stretch, as she wasn't home very much! Same with my STBXW. She's someone who doesn't work. Doesn't mean she does anything around the house. A court won't care, it'll just see her as the parent not working and assume she's a SAHP.

2. First of all, put my quotation in its full context taking age into account, and then find me a SAHP who cannot reasonably adjust who had a career before children and I'll explain why you're wrong.

3. It's also a lazy assumption to believe all SAHP arrangements are joint decisions. I never wanted my wife to be a SAHP but she simply let her last contract run out and then refused to ever get another one. It's been a bone of contention ever since. She's always been lazy and I wish I'd heeded the warning signs before I married her. She was always quitting jobs without having another one lined up and financially squeezed us more than once.

The point is every case is different, but people commonly make lazy assumptions about family arrangements when there is a parent who doesn't work.

May I ask I am divocing, he signed a agreement with me ,all the house belong to me, I dont have solicitor, I am single mum now, suffered domestic abuse, So the house will belong to me ? it is part buy and part rent house. we not buy all of share yet.

Yes it’s an absolute bummer and is why I will never marry.

Happens to men all the time, increasingly to women as well

Did you change the child benefit OP, I noticed you picked up on a comment made by a poster about him being primary caregiver. Regardless of the set up, the person who claims the child benefit is seen in court as the primary caregiver. This, puts you at a disadvantage on negotiations for the house.

Clean break orders are much more preferred these days. I'd be pushing for you keeping the house. He gets flat plus his pension.

@CombatBarbie no, I didn’t yet. I can’t figure out how to broach the subject with him, although I’m really annoyed about how he treats the child benefit as his income. I’m getting some legal advice tomorrow, but I am hoping to avoid going to court over all of this.

I feel for you op. I didn’t marry my ex so managed to get out of the relationship unscathed. He probably did a little more childcare than me but he did exactly the same job as he was doing prior to our relationship so why should I give him my assets? I’d rather keep them for me and my dds.

Also I think that if one person chooses to give up their job they also have partial responsibility for any damage to their career. I work full time with young children as a single mum (and if I didn’t no one would be calling me a sahm). There is no reason both parents can’t at least do some work. The idea that you have to give up your job for decades because you have children isn’t reality.

@CayrolBaaaskin well, I never gave up work and in fact barely took maternity leave.

@CombatBarbie I had a session with a family solicitor today and she said not to worry about the fact that he claims the CB in his name because I am the one who is at home when the kids come home from school each day, no court would accept that he is the main carer.

@Mumof3confused - I know. And now you have to give up your assets to your ex which is rubbish.

I wouldn't broach it, I'd just call them and tell them you are primary carer.

If you can prove you paid the deposit you may be able to ring-fence it in the settlement, I paid the deposit for our house out of an inheritance from my grandparents & was able to have it ringfenced in the settlement.

@Nat6999

If you can prove you paid the deposit you may be able to ring-fence it in the settlement, I paid the deposit for our house out of an inheritance from my grandparents & was able to have it ringfenced in the settlement.

Yes, I spoke to a solicitor who said that this could probably be ringfenced.