What is seen as fair

[Nitotoo]

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.

@Nitotoo

A small 2 bedroom flat is around 220k.

My solicitor told me that rented is viewed as unsafe and not as housing needs met. My own experience since leaving has been stressful having to move and pluck a deposit out the air with kids in tow. The legal advice is received was that our housing needs are not met so I'm going by what tje legal advisors have said that's all.

I suggest you stop reading this thread. The advice is terrible and the abuse you are receiving for wanting to do right by both of your children is unacceptable. Trust your parents, they're doing right by you. I think your solicitor is too.

I've gotten a bit of a reputation on here for being a bit unfair to SAHPs because I do think they have to stand on their own two feet and I will say your future income depends on you going to work. However, I take a very firm view that needs trump everything and a child's needs trump everyone else's. This man made a commitment to you to house your family. You made decisions based on that understanding that have long term consequences. What was owned before marriage is only relevant when needs are met. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is unambiguous about that. It also makes clear provision for your DD whose needs are of course just as important as your DS. If your ex made a commitment to house a child he cannot just change his mind.

@Unknown83 I think you're giving the OP false hope tbh.

Id be shocked if she received 50% of the equity, having brought no money to a 1 year marriage, and having moved into a situation where the ExH already owned the property. After a longer marriage sure, she likely would get it.

And what you're suggesting would be lovely for her in an ideal world. We'd all love to walk out of a 1 year marriage with a mortgage free 3 bed that we'd paid nothing towards.

But many many many people are living in rented property with children.

Looking at it realistically I'd expect she'll receive £40k in a best case scenario, which she'll then have to pay a whopping 2 year solicitors bill on.

If i were you i would stop focusing on what your ex h has and focus on bring able to earn more money. If you eork onbgetting a better job, you could be able to buy a house in a few years.

This man made a commitment to you to house your family so just 'this man' the op doesn't have any responsibility to be involved in this, she has no duty of care herself?

You can't just focus on the length of the marriage when that marriage included children because that decision included an 18 year commitment to raise a child together.

No you are ignoring it. Usually can have a child with someone and make that '18 year commitment' without being married. You would not be responsible for the other parent.

The length of the marriage will be taken into account. As well as the child.

@Nitotoo I don't know where you found this solicitor. But essentially, you are saying that the solicitor has decided that because you work part time, and can't get a mortgage then he must give a larger portion of the house or house you until your child is 18. That's just not how it works. You could have worked full time in the last few years. Lots of us single parents do and you would actually be in a position to get a mortgage with the money your parents have AND what you get in the settlement.

Mesher orders are extremely difficult to get. Especially, when you have been housing yourself. Especially when the marriage is short. Renting is not unsafe. Yes, it has less security. But that doesn't mean your soon to be ex has to make sure you have that security. There's no rule that says because he can get a mortgage he has to ensure you do too.

@Unknown83 is giving you false hope based on very little. Get the 2nd opinion.

I am not sure if you are misunderstanding what your solicitor is saying, or they are talking about what they could try and you think it's fact. Or they are talking rubbish. But if your soon to be ex has a half decent solicitor, all what you think will likey unravel.

It also makes clear provision for your DD whose needs are of course just as important as your DS. If your ex made a commitment to house a child he cannot just change his mind.

The dd is having her housing needs met by her own father and her mother, the op. The ds is having his housing needs met through his father (via cms) and his mother.

The op has as much responsibility to meet her child's needs as the fathers do. And the fathers are both paying what's required.

OP's CMS alone is 2/3 of my salary. She will be entitled to benefits if she is not working.

If she does choose se to work, and make her own financial commitment towards her children's upkeep, she may still be entitled to some benefits, have her CMS, a contribution from her parents, and some of the increase in equity that was made for the 14 months of her marriage.

How about, rather than making a man make massively disproportionate contributions, op steps up and meets her own responsibilities.

One might argue that if he made an 18 year commitment then so did she, yet she walked away from the house and has not paid a penny towards its upkeep or mortgage in the meantime.

If they had chosen not to get married she would be walking away with nothing. Zero. 14 months of marriage, during which she, her dd and her joint ds were housed in a home entirely funded by the ex, does not entitle op to move back in, get a mesher order or demand at least 50% of the equity including the 4 years since they separated.

The ex is only required to support his ds. It is up to op to provide for herself and her children, with support from their fathers.

The fact that op thinks she is both absolved of any responsibility and entitled to in excess of £70k due to 420 days of marriage is truly shocking.

Totally understand the sentiment @Fuuuuuckit

But. This isn’t about you and your circumstances

[quote changeling86]@Unknown83 I think you're giving the OP false hope tbh.

Id be shocked if she received 50% of the equity, having brought no money to a 1 year marriage, and having moved into a situation where the ExH already owned the property. After a longer marriage sure, she likely would get it.

And what you're suggesting would be lovely for her in an ideal world. We'd all love to walk out of a 1 year marriage with a mortgage free 3 bed that we'd paid nothing towards.

But many many many people are living in rented property with children.

Looking at it realistically I'd expect she'll receive £40k in a best case scenario, which she'll then have to pay a whopping 2 year solicitors bill on. [/quote]
I'm not a solicitor but I have several other legal qualifications. I understand the logic of the law, I can read legal cases and I can understand precedent. I can also cite what I am saying on cases like C v C (Financial Relief – Short Marriage) [1997] 2 FLR 26 and S v B (Ancillary Relief – Costs) [2004] EWHC 2089.

What are your legal credentials? Because the advice you are giving would normally only apply to a short, childless marriage.

@MichelleScarn

This man made a commitment to you to house your family so just 'this man' the op doesn't have any responsibility to be involved in this, she has no duty of care herself?

Of course she does but we're talking about the assets here, not future income. The assets provided for the needs of the family and should continue to do so.

@AlDanvers

You can't just focus on the length of the marriage when that marriage included children because that decision included an 18 year commitment to raise a child together.

No you are ignoring it. Usually can have a child with someone and make that '18 year commitment' without being married. You would not be responsible for the other parent.

The length of the marriage will be taken into account. As well as the child.

@Nitotoo I don't know where you found this solicitor. But essentially, you are saying that the solicitor has decided that because you work part time, and can't get a mortgage then he must give a larger portion of the house or house you until your child is 18. That's just not how it works. You could have worked full time in the last few years. Lots of us single parents do and you would actually be in a position to get a mortgage with the money your parents have AND what you get in the settlement.

Mesher orders are extremely difficult to get. Especially, when you have been housing yourself. Especially when the marriage is short. Renting is not unsafe. Yes, it has less security. But that doesn't mean your soon to be ex has to make sure you have that security. There's no rule that says because he can get a mortgage he has to ensure you do too.

@Unknown83 is giving you false hope based on very little. Get the 2nd opinion.

I am not sure if you are misunderstanding what your solicitor is saying, or they are talking about what they could try and you think it's fact. Or they are talking rubbish. But if your soon to be ex has a half decent solicitor, all what you think will likey unravel.

No you are ignoring it. Usually can have a child with someone and make that '18 year commitment' without being married. You would not be responsible for the other parent.

Irrelevant because they did get married. Plus the Children's Act 1989 would still be relevant to the housing of the children even if they hadn't married.

The length of the marriage will be taken into account but only after the needs of the children.

@AlDanvers

It also makes clear provision for your DD whose needs are of course just as important as your DS. If your ex made a commitment to house a child he cannot just change his mind.

The dd is having her housing needs met by her own father and her mother, the op. The ds is having his housing needs met through his father (via cms) and his mother.

The op has as much responsibility to meet her child's needs as the fathers do. And the fathers are both paying what's required.

No, she's receiving maintenance from the father. The DD's housing was being provided by the second husband. This is specifically addressed in the Matrimonial Causes Act which I suggest you read along with the cases I mentioned above before accusing me of offering "false hope."

Just what are your legal credentials to disagree with the OP's solicitor anyway? Are you a barrister who specialises in these matters, or a judge?

@Fuuuuuckit

OP's CMS alone is 2/3 of my salary. She will be entitled to benefits if she is not working.

If she does choose se to work, and make her own financial commitment towards her children's upkeep, she may still be entitled to some benefits, have her CMS, a contribution from her parents, and some of the increase in equity that was made for the 14 months of her marriage.

How about, rather than making a man make massively disproportionate contributions, op steps up and meets her own responsibilities.

One might argue that if he made an 18 year commitment then so did she, yet she walked away from the house and has not paid a penny towards its upkeep or mortgage in the meantime.

If they had chosen not to get married she would be walking away with nothing. Zero. 14 months of marriage, during which she, her dd and her joint ds were housed in a home entirely funded by the ex, does not entitle op to move back in, get a mesher order or demand at least 50% of the equity including the 4 years since they separated.

The ex is only required to support his ds. It is up to op to provide for herself and her children, with support from their fathers.

The fact that op thinks she is both absolved of any responsibility and entitled to in excess of £70k due to 420 days of marriage is truly shocking.

What you earn is completely irrelevant and you're ignoring the Children's Act 1989. What are your legal credentials please?

@LemonTT

If after £8k and 3 years, you haven’t reached an agreement over the split then you need a rethink.

Because if you aren’t even in court yet it’s going to cost an awful lot more.

There is always a case to argue. But one side will always lose. Which is why you need to establish exactly how likely you would be to get £80k in these circumstances.

Sometimes both lose, happened to someone I know. Tens of thousands in legal fees and neither in a position to buy a house at the end of it.

Madness in my eyes, I had a reasonable divorce, I'd been married 15 years and always worked, solicitor said, "I'll get you the lot." I said "No thanks." We split it, which was absolutely fair after 15 years and both working and putting money in. If I'd taken the solicitors advice I think the only person who'd have made on the deal would have been the solicitor. ExH didn't even get a solicitor so very minimal costs.

@Unknown83 she doesn’t really need the “family home” (aka her ex house). She lives elsewhere and any money she gets will be eaten up in rent and loss of uc. Hence why her ex dh offered her 16k (level below which UC won’t be cut) and a car. That’s more than reasonable particularly as she gets £1000 a month in child maintenance - that will go a long way to housing both children. In fact, even in the south east that’s easily half the rent on a three bedroom house for op and the kids.

@Unknown83 - what you earn is irrelevant to what? I think it’s fair that op also must take responsibility for her children (bear in mind if she replicated the £1000 a month the fathers pay, she would be making more than the uk average income). Also op must take responsibility for herself. Her youngest child is 6 - no reason she can’t work full time. She chooses not to because it will affect her uc.

Op has a reasonable income (and presumably standard of living) for one who works in a low paid job. She wants to own a house but that’s not really her ex h issue if he pays fairly for his child, which he does.

@Unknown83 - needs of children will be taken into account, yes. But children don’t need both parents to own a house. Op can rent which will perfectly adequately meet her childrens need to be housed in the eyes of the court. Further a short marriage generally means parties enter as they came in.

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@Unknown83 - what you earn is irrelevant to what? I think it’s fair that op also must take responsibility for her children (bear in mind if she replicated the £1000 a month the fathers pay, she would be making more than the uk average income). Also op must take responsibility for herself. Her youngest child is 6 - no reason she can’t work full time. She chooses not to because it will affect her uc.

Op has a reasonable income (and presumably standard of living) for one who works in a low paid job. She wants to own a house but that’s not really her ex h issue if he pays fairly for his child, which he does.[/quote]
The poster I was responding to was talking about what they earned presumably to make some song and dance about how they managed. Not relevant to the discussion.

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@Unknown83 - needs of children will be taken into account, yes. But children don’t need both parents to own a house. Op can rent which will perfectly adequately meet her childrens need to be housed in the eyes of the court. Further a short marriage generally means parties enter as they came in.[/quote]
No but the guidelines are quite clear that there should be fairness between the parties and if one can own both should.

@Unknown83 - it’s not the case practically that the divorce courts in England aim for both parties to own a home. Needs met, yes. But in many, perhaps even the majority of cases, one party will have to rent. Op is on a low income but once topped up with benefits and cm should be pretty comfortable if renting. She can’t afford to own a house though like many. But that is not an aim of the family court. Her needs are met.

@Levithian

I get what people are saying about the morals of this, but the man is a bit of an arse if he's happy to have a far, far higher living standard than his own child. I don't think you'll get 50% OP, maybe lower your sights a bit as far as your next home is concerned and think about what you yourself can afford as opposed to getting the most money out of your ex and your mum. I know that sounds nasty, but there's no point in living in a big house if you can't afford to run it.

Right but when one party has to rent that will normally be the parent with less childcare responsibilities.

I could only get a mortgage I think for around 50k slightly under based on my hours so that's why I needed the additional 70 to 80k to get this up to the 200k mark but even then its a small 2 bed property and not ideal for us long term but it would be secure.

As I said my solicitor said a court wouldn't judge rented as secure accommodation and we were housed in a mortgaged property so should be back in one as thjs is about our needs. I did contribute I didn't look for work as was raising our son but XH was still working and when he said to get a job I did and I did it around his hours so there wasn't a childcare element to be paid. He can earn upward of 1300 after tax a week at times and his new partner earns around 3k a month after tax they don't have to stay in the house they arw in and could easily afford themselves security elsewhere. Why shouldn't her salary be taken into account they live a very affluent life together and surely shows a court he will be secure regardless of what happens in this outcome. Honestly the stress and worry of trying to rehome a family and pluck a deposit from the air was awful thankfully due to Covid is was 6 month notice.

In regards to working full time I will actually be worse off each month by the time everything and the additional childcare is paid so it just isn't feasible.

My solicitor said a court would be unlikely to order a large sum if it wouldn't be used productively so for example 30k would affect my benefits and I wouldn't get any so would be expected to use this to live off and would be for nothing as wouldn't do anything to improve our future or enhance our housing needs. He also said irs a needs case we need secure housing as much as he does we aren't lesser than him.

Irrelevant because they did get married. Plus the Children's Act 1989 would still be relevant to the housing of the children even if they hadn't married.

I talked about unmarried because of comment your made.

There's absolutely nowhere that it's stipulates if one person owns the other should. And the length of the marriage is hugely relevant. As is the fact that he owned the property before they lived together.

Op, get a second opinion and crack on. Again there's no rule that says because he can get a mortgage, he must enable you to get one too.

Unknown is basically saying you haven't met your children's needs for the last few years. Which is, I am sure, not something you agree with.

Your do not need a mortgage free him or a home with a tiny mortgage. You need to use the years you are getting CMS to try and improve your own financial well being. CMS doesn't last forever and you couldn't find yourself struggling when the first child's father no longer has to pay.

Rely on yourself it makes life easier.

Why shouldn't her salary be taken into account they live a very affluent life together and surely shows a court he will be secure regardless of what happens in this outcome.

I don't think her salary should essentially by used to support you and your children. They could split up. You could get another partner too. I expect you probably will want to find another man to support you all.

I mean to support him not us. I'm sure if I had a partner with a high salary or living in a partners house my XH would be using that to say my needs are met that's all.