Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Divorce/separation

Here you'll find divorce help and support from other Mners. For legal advice, you may find Advice Now guides useful.

Original poster

What is seen as fair

239 replies

Nitotoo · 01/02/2022 11:24

Just that really what is deemed fair in the eyes of a judge. XH and I are heading to court soon for FDR he had previously made me an offer which he deemed fair but my solicitor said starting point of 50%.

To give brief details met in 2014 after my first marriage ended and I had been made redundant. My daughter from my first marriage and I were living in rented accommodation and in receipt of full benefits. XH was in the process of buying a home to renovate and get on the housing ladder. I stayed in rental accommodation. I fell pregnant with our DS in 2015 and XH then sold his first property and bought a family home for us all to live in in his name. We moved in in Jan 2016. I was still not working due to having a baby and had struggled to find anything since being made redundant. We married in 2017 after XH took a loan to fund a wedding and a new car for me. This loan is like the house in his name only. I was able to find a part time job around this time around XH working commitments working 16 to 20 hours a week to bring in a small income. In 2018 we seperated and I left with the children to private rented accommodation with benefit top up from UC. XH stayed in his house.

Were struggling to reach an agreement as he offered 16k I keep the car and have no liability to the loan. My solicitor said 50 50 which is more like 80k with the equity and current house prices.

XH has moved his new partner into this house. Due to financial disclosure they both have a healthy salary and seem to have a good life whilst me and the children have been served section 21 and forced to move and struggle on UC as I can only work 24hrs a week when children are in school. I don't feel very secure in rented accommodation and feel I should have stayed in the house.

Would I be likely to gain an order to get back in the house? Would I be likely to get 50% I realise at a 14 month marriage and whole cohabiting relationship of 34 months it could be deemed a short marriage but there is a huge difference in our circumstances which cannot be seen as fair. If I'm forced to work more hours who picks up the childcare bills, XH? I could possibly work more hours but I doubt I could get a mortgage more than enough to buy a place I would need. My solicitor is saying to hold out for the FDR and my XH is saying the original offer he made is now off the table. My mum could potentially gift me a 6 figure sum towards a house but I would need at least 50% of the equity to top this up to what is needed. Would I then get spousal maintenance to top up the loss of UC to live off he is quite a high earner on about 70k a year (I already get cms payments however the min cms amount) would I really be liable for half of the loan that XH took in his name only? His claiming I should be however I would think he has nearly paid this off by now.

OP posts:
changeling86 · 01/02/2022 15:29

Sorry op, but I really don't think your current solicitor has been very realistic with you.

Firstly, forget his new partners earning potential.

Secondly, I'd be shocked if you received 50% of the value of the house after a 1 year marriage, considering that the property predates your marriage.

I'm also slightly confused by the suggestion that the recent ExH is solely responsible for housing your older child considering they have a parent that pays maintenance.

I would not expect 50% of the equity here.

I would consider making a counter offer of £40k plus child maintenance, I think considering the circumstances you would be lucky to get this. You could end up with less if he's willing to fight this to the end.

After such a short relationship and considering you were not a high earner prior to having your second child, and brought no property to the marriage, you might not even get as much as he is currently offering.

BillMasen · 01/02/2022 15:35

But op you were married a year, what makes you think you should be kept to the same standard as when you were married?

I do t think it’s his responsibility to ensure you have the security of a mortgage.

And I think the 1k a month cms on top of benefits is set at that level (based on NRPs earnings) to try and ensure the children get a similar standard of living.

I also think you’re being a bit unfair criticising him for not seeing your daughter and just seeing his son.

16k + a car and no debts is looking fairer to me the more you post tbh

Original poster
Nitotoo · 01/02/2022 15:41

I didn't really have a clue about finances to start with and it was my solicitor who said it's 50 50 split and that the offer he made was grossly unfair as this is a needs case in regards to housing.

The house isn't a massive big mansion just a standard 3 bed semi the mortgage is likely less than my private rent if I'm honest but I wouldn't get UC for the mortgage I understand that.

I have around 1000 in cms payments from their fathers collectively.

I do work around the children in a min wage job doing around 20 to 24 hours a week. Anything more than this effects my UC and I struggle to pay for childcare which is why I don't increase it and worry about being forced to increase it as will leave me out of pocket. My income is made up of cms payments, small salary payment, UC and child benefit. I thought he would have given up by now but seems he is calling my bluff on it and now I'm in a panic.

I will seek another solicitors advice.

OP posts:
AlDanvers · 01/02/2022 15:50

Its not your exh responsibility to make sure you are on a equal financial footing as him.

Many single parents, myself included, work full time. Its not easy but doable.

Your earning potential wasn't damaged by your marriage and most of the assets were not accrued during the marriage.

Both your exs are paying towards housing their own children.

Why you think your eldest should have 2 men paying towards her upkeep, is quite confusing.

Also, just because your ds father has a mortgaged property doesn't mean your dd should get to have one parent with a mortgaged property. Thata not how it works. Yoh have 2 children with 2 men, so there will always be differences in their set ups.

changeling86 · 01/02/2022 15:53

50/50 is often the starting point, and this of course is fair in 10+ year marriages.

But for such a short marriage to which you did not contribute financially, and the assets already being his prior to the marriage, I highly doubt you'll get 50% or a mortgage free home.

LemonTT · 01/02/2022 16:08

You need to get your solicitor to differentiate between what he is asking for and what he reasonably thinks you will get if you go to court. Also how much it will cost to go to court.

Ask for and get or two very different things.

Petsop · 01/02/2022 16:23

From moving in together 2016 to separating in 2018 won’t be considered a long marriage so you won’t get 50%

Original poster
Nitotoo · 01/02/2022 16:49

Thanks all. We will be heading to court as we're too far apart XH has said he will not be making any further offers his previous offer is now off the table and will wait for the courts intervention. My solicitor said best to wait for the FDR although I could ask him to make a counter offer I guess of 40% or even 30% of the equity which gives me around 40 to 50k. The trouble is with this amount I'd have to use it to live off as UC would take it as income and it isn't a house deposit amount with my current earning capacity and when I would be able to earn a decent amount to secure a mortgage on a 3 bed property the money would be gone. Even with a 100k gift from my parents it's nowhere near enough to secure a property and would just be eaten in rent payments.

OP posts:
Unknown83 · 01/02/2022 16:56

People saying the OP is grabby - hang on a minute.

We're not talking about huge sums of equity here so we're dealing with a needs case. And the OP's case is really no different than any other woman who has a short marriage with a man where a child is born.

Children change everything

Would the OP have had a second child unless she had the security offered by her second husband? Almost certainly not. Has this changed her needs? Absolutely yes. Where once a two bedroom flat was sufficient for her needs she now needs three bedrooms because she has one girl and one boy. Her second husband only needs a two bedroom flat because he only has one child.

In my opinion the STBXH has two choices. Either he accepts that the equity should be split 50/50 (based on the hard needs created by joint decisions because the length of marriage is less important than the needs of the child) or he offers a Mesher Order on the house where he gets a bigger share of the equity at the end to make up for the shortness of the marriage.

One rare as hen's teeth that could work I guess is a Harvey Order. The OP would live in the house but pay an occupational rent to the ex-husband (perhaps paid for with the CM). These are so rare (as in don't really exist now) though!

millymolls · 01/02/2022 17:20

It’s tricky
You were unemployed and in rental when you met
You haven’t contributed financially as I can see
You haven’t been disadvantaged as a result of the marriage
You had a short marriage ( and not a long relationship in total)

If I was him I 100% would be offering less than 50%

Spousal? Really? Can’t see that

LemonTT · 01/02/2022 17:28

@Unknown83

People saying the OP is grabby - hang on a minute.

We're not talking about huge sums of equity here so we're dealing with a needs case. And the OP's case is really no different than any other woman who has a short marriage with a man where a child is born.

Children change everything

Would the OP have had a second child unless she had the security offered by her second husband? Almost certainly not. Has this changed her needs? Absolutely yes. Where once a two bedroom flat was sufficient for her needs she now needs three bedrooms because she has one girl and one boy. Her second husband only needs a two bedroom flat because he only has one child.

In my opinion the STBXH has two choices. Either he accepts that the equity should be split 50/50 (based on the hard needs created by joint decisions because the length of marriage is less important than the needs of the child) or he offers a Mesher Order on the house where he gets a bigger share of the equity at the end to make up for the shortness of the marriage.

One rare as hen's teeth that could work I guess is a Harvey Order. The OP would live in the house but pay an occupational rent to the ex-husband (perhaps paid for with the CM). These are so rare (as in don't really exist now) though!

She got pregnant before the marriage or living together. So no she didn’t have an expectation of anything when that happened.
LethargicActress · 01/02/2022 17:28

Morally, your ex’s offer is perfectly fair. Your entire relationship lasted five minutes, it’s ridiculous that you think you should profit by thousands of pounds just because you had a baby, who you have responsibility for too.

Having a marriage doesn’t entitle you to someone else’s house.

Fuuuuuckit · 01/02/2022 17:59

Holy fuck.

You were actually married for 14 months, with a total relationship of less than 3 years.

You will not be entitled to any of the deposit, as it was his sole investment before you were married. At most, you will be entitled to a share of the increase in value of the house between the time you were married, until you officially separated. Not from purchase date to now. You have made zero contribution to that house of any kind since 2018 so therefore you have no claim for the last 4 years: he has paid CMS since then.

You need to provide a full list of all assets at the date of marriage, and at the point of separation. On such a short marriage it is incredibly unlikely that a judge will offer you any more than you brought to the marriage.

The house, whilst a joint marital asset, was only such for 14 months. You cannot expect to chuck him and his new partner out of a home he bought and paid for and you've not lived in for 4 years. That's insane!

Fuuuuuckit · 01/02/2022 18:03

Would the OP have had a second child unless she had the security offered by her second husband? Almost certainly not. Has this changed her needs? Absolutely yes. Where once a two bedroom flat was sufficient for her needs she now needs three bedrooms because she has one girl and one boy. Her second husband only needs a two bedroom flat because he only has one child.

Only one of these children is her ex's, he really has no responsibility to house a child from her first marriage, that is for that child's father to support.

Fuuuuuckit · 01/02/2022 18:10

OP your ex's new partner's income is irrelevant. She can quite easily walk away from this madness. Your ds is now 6,uet you are reliant on uc - time to get back into full time work - and there is a childcare aspect of uc to cover some of the costs. Alternatively, why not offer 50/50 care so the costs are shared, and you can work longer hours? Millions of us do Hmm

AlDanvers · 01/02/2022 18:19

@Unknown83 op has been meeting the child's needs since she left. Through her wages CMS (for both children) and UC.

Needs and wants are 2 different things the child doesn't need a house that there's a mortgage on.

CMS is being paid. Op is half responsible for meeting those children's needs too. That doesn't automatically means she gets half of an asset, bought before marriage, that she hasn't lived in for years or paid towards since she left.

The child's needs are met. Its a short marriage. Both will be considered.

BoodleBug51 · 01/02/2022 18:24

I feel very sorry for the XH after reading this.

Unknown83 · 01/02/2022 18:24

@millymolls

It’s tricky You were unemployed and in rental when you met You haven’t contributed financially as I can see You haven’t been disadvantaged as a result of the marriage You had a short marriage ( and not a long relationship in total)

If I was him I 100% would be offering less than 50%

Spousal? Really? Can’t see that

She absolutely has been 'disadvantaged' by the marriage. She has a very young child from this man who is not the same sex as her older child. Needs generated from this marriage are significant.
Unknown83 · 01/02/2022 18:26

@LemonTT

Oh come on! Whose child is it, the Pope's? If she had a child when cohabiting and then married I don't think we should be splitting hairs here.

Unknown83 · 01/02/2022 18:28

@Fuuuuuckit

Would the OP have had a second child unless she had the security offered by her second husband? Almost certainly not. Has this changed her needs? Absolutely yes. Where once a two bedroom flat was sufficient for her needs she now needs three bedrooms because she has one girl and one boy. Her second husband only needs a two bedroom flat because he only has one child.

Only one of these children is her ex's, he really has no responsibility to house a child from her first marriage, that is for that child's father to support.

No, but he certainly changed her circumstances considerably.
Unknown83 · 01/02/2022 18:36

@BoodleBug51

I feel very sorry for the XH after reading this.
I feel sorry for the XW. There is precedent for both generous shares of assets and even maintenance from short marriages where children are involved and quite right too. The OPs circumstances have been materially altered and she needs somewhere to live. Renting a 3 bed house is far more difficult than renting a 2 bed flat too.

@Nitotoo Be careful of your solicitor racking up fees but the advice you are getting on here is crap. They are making their own moral judgements presumably because you married twice rather than showing you the kindness and respect you deserve.

AlDanvers · 01/02/2022 18:41

She absolutely has been 'disadvantaged' by the marriage. She has a very young child from this man who is not the same sex as her older child. Needs generated from this marriage are significant.

The child is 6. Not very young and the ex sees and pays CMS.

Nobody is saying she shouldn't get anything.

Unknown83 · 01/02/2022 18:45

@AlDanvers

She absolutely has been 'disadvantaged' by the marriage. She has a very young child from this man who is not the same sex as her older child. Needs generated from this marriage are significant.

The child is 6. Not very young and the ex sees and pays CMS.

Nobody is saying she shouldn't get anything.

@AIDanvers

The child is 6, needs to be housed for another 12 years and let's be honest, CM is not enough. The family owned a house. The OP has a right to part of it to house THEIR child.

Don't get me wrong, she must get a job too and I wouldn't entertain SM in a case like this but she absolutely should get some of the FMH because she needs it.

User135792468 · 01/02/2022 18:55

I sincerely hope that my sons manage to avoid a woman like you Op. You were in rented, on benefits and with a child when you met. Your marriage lasted just over 1 year and you want 50% of everything? Just, wow! No wonder many men are choosing to avoid marriage. You also think that because his new partner has a decent wage, then they need to pay you more. I have a feeling that you will be sorely disappointed with the court order. Your circumstances didn’t change due to marriage, you didn’t give up a career to raise children and you weren’t in a long marriage. I feel for the next poor sucker that crosses your path - just think, that would be 2 children that aren’t his that you could try and make him stump up for.

millymolls · 01/02/2022 19:07

She hasn’t sacrificed a career to support her husband
She hasn’t traipsed around country following him
She has contributed anything financially ( I know that is not necessarily important)
To expect 50% of pre acquired marital
Assets and spousal is quite outrageous in my view ( not a legal perspective obviously!)

Don’t see at all first child being treated as a child of this marriage
Not saying walk away with nothing but 50% ?!
I’ll definitely tell my son to not get married !

Swipe left for the next trending thread