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.

His partners earnings are not your concern
If you want that income level go earn it

It is not the responsibility of your ex’s new partner to fund your living standards. It’s not her fault that you don’t seem want to be financially independent. Your ds has two parents who should both be financially contributing to his welfare. You seem incredibly passive and think that you are owed a certain lifestyle but don’t want to take any personal responsibility - you expect your ex and your parents to fund you. Your kids are getting older now so it’s up to you to work out how you are going to support yourself - retraining, career change. Stop expecting to sponge off others.

Have you always been spoiled op? my money would go into a joint account but I would then use that for beauty appointments, clothes and little bit and bobs instead of his money so it contributed in that I was providing for myself a little rather than using 'his' income.
"His money is our money, but my money is my treat money"
Where were your family when you were renting with your dd? Or did you not get on that horse of hounding your first husband as he didn't have any money to go after?

Where do you live OP? If you ended up with say £50k plus the gift from your parents surely that would be a significant deposit on a house or even enough to buy a small one outright? I'm in a very expensive part of the country but I could still get a small house or flat with that.

The problem is when you talk about need. The child doesn't need a home that has a mortgage. Tons of single parents rent.

The fact that you can't get a mortgage is down to your part time job. After 14 months of marriage I very much doubt a judge will be willing to give an asset to you or most of the value so you can remain working part time.

Again, it's not your exhs job, after a short marriage to ensure you can work part time. My experience, with friends divorces and my own is that the judge expects you both to provide and both to work, where there's no pre school children.

If you worked full time used what you get from stbex, plus the 100k from your parents, plus your full time wage you could get a mortgage. You say you would be worse off but also that a mortgaged home is a need. You would still get help towards childcare (afterschool clubs etc).

If you or your child need something, it's also your job to provide it. Stbexh will be providing his section with CMS.

Why do you believe you don't have to put yourself out to have this need fulfilled?

I'm going to leave this thread now. Thank you for those who have commented through the eyes of the legalities rather than morally. People may not like it but I am entitled to something of what my XH has because he married me took on my daughter and we have a child together. Hence why I've registered home rights at land registry and it was accepted.

I do not expect his partner to keep me but if you are in a serious Co habiting relationship both being high earners it's a lot easier to meet your housing needs than it is for me. If I had a millionaire boyfriend I was cohabiting with I'm pretty sure it would be deemed my needs are met and effect my settlement so surely that works both ways?!

My solicitor has told me where a family have lived within the security of a mortgaged property myself and the children being in rented is NOT classed as secure housing by a judge.

A 2 bedroom property is in the region of 220k so no 150k is not enough. I cannot work full time it makes me no better off each month in fact worse off with childcare costs and means its tough to live provide food and pay the bills my UC doesn't cover my full rent it's expensive here to rent a mortgage is much cheaper than rental. if I could even get a mortgage my max borrowing capacity it 50k max. I was also told I have to prove to a judge what I would do with the money so they would be unlikely to award 30,40k as I'd receive no UC and this money would be wasted using as living costs it wouldn't assist with a deposit. I can show what 50% of his property would give me it would give us a chance to buy and be in a mortgaged property.

Enough of you have said to get another opinion with the legal facts so I will. However I feel a lot of you are emotive abiut the subject rather than looking at the needs and the entitlement I have to something of what he has. I'll get a other opinion and take my chances at an FDR I guess I could get 16k or I could get 50% I guess it depends on the judges opinion on the day in the meantime with barrister and legal fees I hope my XH makes a more reasonable suggestion to save us both the ongoing costs. I'm not paying my legal fees so have nothing to loose and my parents are keen to keep fighting it so it's costing him not us.

Why can't you work full time and use wrap around care like the majority of people, including single parents? (I know you're probably not going to answer as you've got all the "yay go get all his money!" posts!)

XH makes a more reasonable suggestion to save us both the ongoing costs. I'm not paying my legal fees so have nothing to loose and my parents are keen to keep fighting it so it's costing him not us.

Urg that is absolutely vile and immature! 'Hee hee it's costing him not me' what an appalling example to teach your children.

Honestly op
I think your solicitor sounds like a total
Quack based on all the divorces that's my friends have gone through.
A judge would laugh someone out of court if they tried to claim that a rented house wasn't sufficient to meet a child's needs but rock on and spend your parents money away.

The courts will always put the welfare of your children first. I think it’s very possible that you could win provided it was his unreasonable behaviour that caused the end of the relationship.

It gets more complicated however if it was your behaviour that led to the split. You have suggested it was you who left the marriage. This will be taken into consideration.

As I said before, good luck and do get a second opinion.

@MichelleScarn because I don't want to put my kids into poverty whereby I cant afford the things they need. UC does not cover my full rent it would not cover all my childcare costs for 2 children you also loose some UC the more you work anyway I will be worse of financially and potentially have to then choose food or heating. It may work for you to work full time but it doesn't for me.

A judge would laugh someone out of court if they tried to claim that a rented house wasn't sufficient to meet a child's needs but rock on and spend your parents money away.

Not necessarily as they were, as a family, living in the security of a owned albeit mortgaged house during the marriage. This is the point OP is making.

The fact they had 2 children together, and a judge will not discriminate whether they were both his biological children or not, makes this much less cut and dry than the usual rules for a short marriage.

You've been served a section 21 when you work, get UC, £1000 pcm for your first child and maintenance for your second? Something doesn't add up. Stop talking about their earning potential and increase yours. I don't think you should get anything from the house. You were hardly married. You brought nothing to the table so why should you walk away with money?

My solicitor has told me where a family have lived within the security of a mortgaged property myself and the children being in rented is NOT classed as secure housing by a judge.

That's absolutely not true. Every divorce is different. Every settlement has its nuances. Your solicitor can nor make sweeping statements like that. Many many families, post divorce have one parent renting, one parenting owning. It may be true in some divorces, not in all and he can't gaurentee that. I hope, that you ate just not listening to the solicitor properly. Also the glee at which you are wasting your parents money is quite disturbing.

Its your divorce. Not there's. Yet again, you seem to think very little of other people's money.

@Pootlepoodle whose fault it was is very rarely taken into consideration when it comes to financial settlements. At least in the UK.

I'm not paying my legal fees so have nothing to loose and my parents are keen to keep fighting it so it's costing him not us.

A word of caution OP. If your parents are paying your legal fees, they need to make it clear that it is a tax free gift or a loan. Since you’ve already racked up fees of 8k, this is getting close to your personal allowance.

The fact they had 2 children together, and a judge will not discriminate whether they were both his biological children or not, makes this much less cut and dry than the usual rules for a short marriage.

The judge may well discriminate. As the first child's father is providing that child. 2 men will not be legally and ginancially responsible for one child.

OP, I cannot believe that you’ve already payed 8k in solicitor fees and this is still unresolved. That is really a high amount of money.

From my experience it is very very unlikely you will get spousal. Could you not take the 16k and car and request more in maintenance payments to cover childcare costs? That way you could increase your hours? Or could your parents pay childcare costs for you?
16k seems very generous considering the length of the marriage. Loads of families rent so I’m not sure how it’s deemed insecure.
It really is irrelevant what his partner earns. She should not be expected to have her finances taken into account.
It could be really risky going to court as you just never know what the judge will decide on the day. You’ve been split for years and are managing financially so they might just decide that you don’t need any extra money from him.

@Nitotoo

It would be great if you could come back when you know the outcome. Like I've said, I think too many people are making moral judgements based on their own view of the situation rather than considering the law.

We simply cannot live in a country that allows children's lives to be destabilised because adults fall out and the law on that is clear as day in the Matrimonial Causes Act. Your ex-husband does not have the right to provide a home for your eldest child and then pull the rug from under her because of a falling out with you. When an adult makes an obligation to a child in this country they are expected to see it through.

Although your DD's father is still on the scene, this is addressed by CM. Your second husband would never be expected to pay CM for a child that was not his. However, the needs of both of your children will apply equally in terms of having somewhere to live.

Perhaps though a negotiated outcome of this case could be some kind of Mesher arrangement that reflects the short marriage whereby he is obliged to help you out with £80k of the purchase price but has a fixed charge of 20-30% or so of your home? That might be enough to avoid court and in the future when your children are adults you would be free to move somewhere cheaper.

The fact that the first child has a biological father who is making CM isn’t a factor. The judge will look at level of living for them as a family during the marriage. The welfare of the children always comes first. The issue is how a judge will view the outcome for OP owning a house outright versus living in rented accommodation. It’s unlikely OP’s children will be given betterment, rather the same quality of living standards as enjoyed during the marriage and this could go either way. Because whilst they were living in owned accommodation, it was mortgaged and so that is a grey area.

Just out of interest what would happen if the exh now went for 50/50?

Love these threads.
OP - what is fair ?
Responses- mainly, not what you’re asking

OP - I’m leaving then thread because I don’t like the answers

People on here may be making done moral responses, but also based on experiences of family, friends etc ( as I have)

X post. Unknown 83 makes clear the points I was making much better.

What a crazy thread, I am actually lost for words at how entitled OP is coming across. If your getting £1000pm in CMS for your 2 children your hardly going for poor men are you now.
You came into the relationship with nothing and by the sounds of it now want a load of money for a marriage that was literally over in a few months. Some people are outrageous! Look after your children with the financial support their fathers provide and get on with your life, work and support yourself. You sound like a brat!

When an adult makes an obligation to a child in this country they are expected to see it through.

But you don't include the op in this obligation?
So you can enter a marriage with dc from a previous one, contribute nothing, be an absolute leach, leave the relationship and then claim the moral high ground to continue to live the life you want while saying its the other person's responsibility to fund your lifestyle? Best argument to not get married ever!

A quick Google shows that 'child of a family' when it's a blended family is not clear cut. There is no 'definitely'. Given the shortness of the cohabitation, there's definitely a good chance the first child is will not be classed as the exh responsibility.

I found this as some of the factors taken into consideration

Who the child lives with;

· The time the child spends with the person e.g. emergency or temporary care as opposed to long term care;

· The financial assistance the person gives to the child e.g. school fees, day-to-day expenses, holidays etc.;

· Whether the person has been making important life decisions for the child;

· Whether the biological parent(s) have abdicated primary responsibility;

· If the person treats the child differently to biological or adoptive children;

· How the child treats the person, e.g. calls them ‘mum’ or ‘dad’;

Given that the stbexh only provided anything for the child for a very short period and hasn't for years or even seen them and their father is very much involved. Its wrong to say the stbexh will definitely have to make provision for the first child.

Maybe, but not definitely. Certainly not enshrined in law.