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.

@MichelleScarn

Well yes, that’s exactly an argument not to get married and in the OP’s exH case, he’s probably regretting it hugely now. That doesn’t change the laws of the land which Unknown83 explains very succinctly.

@Nitotoo

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.

What about a 2 bedroom flat? It doesn't need to be 3 bedrooms right now they can share. If it's on a needs basis you're solicitor is arguing surely it needs to show that you can achieve housing security from the equity pay out. Not much point spending more money fighting if it's going to all get eaten up by rent anyway.

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

Actually it does get taken into consideration especially in the case of short marriages. If it is viewed that the OP opted to leave a marriage in order to gain financial betterment, that will be a factor in how things are decided.

OP I really think you should change solicitors they sound like they care about money. Your ex-husband has a lawyer who has advised him as to what's fair hence why he's not backing down and is willing to take it to court. I'd be surprised if you got 50% split too, it's very unrealistic in your situation.

Adding to my post above as ages might not work for OPs DC to share a room. But OP could share with one of the children or have a sofa bed in the loungeroom. In your position OP I'd be looking at what is the least you can get on the property ladder with, which would be I think, a 2 bedroom flat. You can always use the equity in the flat in the future, when you are earning enough to get a mortgage, to buy a bigger flat or house.

Women who think that another women a (a new partner) should pay for them boil my piss.

I’m a new partner and my now greedy partners EW thought the same. I’m not sure why you think another hard working women should pay for you while you sit in your backside claiming benefits from the hard earning tax payer.

You have seriously been mis advised if you think it is your right to be an owner occupier at someone’s expense.

The courts don’t care if the NR and RP live in a rented or owned home. All they care about are needs not wants. You may ‘want’ his house. But I seriously doubt you will get it - 4 years down the line after a 1 year marriage having not contributed to it.

Rather than waste any more of your parents money on solicitor fees who are giving you unrealistic advise. I suggest you get yourself a solicitor who can advise you as to a realistic settlement.

@AlDanvers

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.

You're demonstrating your lack of understanding of how the law works in England again. Just because you can't find a black and white, literal statement about something doesn't mean that there is not either a precedent or a method of interpretation of a clause less obvious to you that reaches the same conclusion.

By all means explain how you reached your conclusion citing the relevant case law and the legislation as I did earlier.

@MichelleScarn

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

My advice would be exactly the same.

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
This attitude is the one that leads single mums in very poor situations once the kids turn 18 and they are not entitled to maintenance and child benefits. They only look at immediate benefits and ignore the future.

You wouldn't be worse off working FT and you know it. You might not be better off for a few years but you certainly would be in 3 or 4 years when you won't need childcare any longer.

Yet to expect your ex to support you for the next 11 years or more because YOU don't want to work more hours.

And it's definitely untrue that judges expect the rp to own a home if the ex is. My friend divorced last year. She was earning OK self employed until then and thought she would have enough to buy. With Covid it became impossible and she asked for more in the settlement accordingly. She didn't get it. He judge did consider that she could rent and offer adequate housing for the kids and look for FT work. They were married 8 years.

One thing that isn’t clear OP is that you say you registered home rights with the land registry.

That usually ends upon divorce. So are you actually divorced yet?

I don’t actually see any moral judgement on this thread. Those of us responding are talking from our own experience.
50/50 is a starting point. But it doesn’t mean you will get it.
Your xh hasn’t seen your other child for 4 years and was only in their life for a short time. It seems grossly unfair that he should have to provide you with equity to allow you to purchase a 3 bedroom property.
How many nights do each child spend with their respective fathers?
I was married to a high earner and now claim UC. He has a new high earning partner and so the dc get better holidays etc with him than me but that’s fine. Not everything is going to be equal.
No one ever comes out of a divorce feeling that it’s been fair-that’s just the nature of it.
But I do think if you’re about to be gifted a 6 figure sum from your parents then you shouldn’t be banging on about what his new partner earns. He could counter argue that’s unfair and how would you like it if he tried to claim half of it?
The needs of the children are being met and have been met for the past 4 years since you’ve been separated. I cannot see how you have an argument to take 70k from him after a year long marriage. Please think about other ways like I suggested-of asking for increased maintenance or him to contribute to childcare costs.

@Unknown83 give over. As I pasted above, 'child of the marriage' is not clear cut in blended families. Your quotation is your interpretation of it and ignoring this list of, some of the factors used. Which I out above.

There is precedent for non biological children to be children of the family, but still not the non biological parents responsibility. Usually where the non biological parent has not been hands on with the child for long periods. As is the case here.

Again, stating that this child will have to be provided for, is simply wrong. Non of us no and there is a good case for not providing for the child, due to the circumstances.

A quick Google will tell you 'child of the family' and its implications are not clear cut. He hasn't seen or provided for the child for 4 years. The child has an involved father. Both will be relevant

Really shocked at your brass neck to be honest. You sound horribly grabby and entitled and only interested in what you can get from your ex, your parents and the state. Did it ever occur to you to provide for yourself and half of each of your children yourself?! Or is sponging off other people your life plan?

This sounds like one where only the lawyers will profit and you’ll walk away with a bit but nothing like you seem to think you’re entitled to. Your belief that you’re entitled to your exes assets after such a brief marriage stinks and while he should of course support his own child the idea that he is any way responsible for your other child is laughable and honestly its embarrassing to women everywhere that you’re pursuing that line. As for your ex and his new partner living the high life…they have more money than you because they earn it Just watch out because your ex might decide to push for 50/50 custody of your shared child and then you won’t even get CM out of him. This could backfire for you and honestly after reading your posts it’s hard to hope that it doesn’t.

@MichelleScarn

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

Just realised my post cut short. I meant 50:50 child care for the ds.

Doubtful the exH will go for 50/50 custody after all this time.

It sounds as though he’s sticking to his guns on principle rather than financial necessity.

@Keepitrealnomists

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!

It is not about "poor men." I'm a man going through a divorce (and the higher earner by a long way) and I'm with the OP on this one. The mistake everyone seems to be making is to conflate spousal maintenance and asset splits together. Whilst I would agree the OP has no claim for spousal maintenance (although if her ex was a very high earner she would, because the birth of a child was a material change and a wealthy partner may be expected to pay maintenance even in a short marriage, refer to C v C (Financial Relief: Short Marriage) 1997) she absolutely has a claim for the use of if not outright ownership of a portion of the assets and I think it might be 50/50 in light of the court's duty to consider the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future. The fact that they had a child together limits the OP's earning capacity for around another 5-7 years until their youngest is in secondary school or age 13 (the age at which UC claimants are expected to pursue full time work) and this has to be taken into consideration by the court.

The court must also make the needs of the children paramount, including the child of the family, the OP's DD (although in the case of the DD the court will take into account the length of time that the ex-husband supported the child). See section 25(3) and 25(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

So back to the original point. When they had a child together they lived in a mortgaged house that the ex-husband owned. If they had a child together then the needs of that child are paramount. That means that first and foremost the assets held by both parties should first and foremost be used to meet the children's needs. If there was plenty of capital, the OP would get enough to house herself and no more. So if he had £1m in the bank she might get £220k for her flat and he would keep the rest. But he has nothing like that amount of capital and therefore something closer to 50/50 is necessary to meet the needs of the children.

The use of the assets to meet the needs of the children could be done in a number of ways. The OP could get a lump sum, which will happen if her housing needs can be met in a way that achieves a clean break. You could have a Mesher Order where the OP only keeps 20% of the equity at the end of the term. The ex-husband could buy a suitable property for the family to live in at the end of which the OP got some of the equity. I wouldn't like to say and the courts have wide discretion on most things but they will first and foremost put the needs of the children first using the assets that the family had.

[quote AlDanvers]@Unknown83 give over. As I pasted above, 'child of the marriage' is not clear cut in blended families. Your quotation is your interpretation of it and ignoring this list of, some of the factors used. Which I out above.

There is precedent for non biological children to be children of the family, but still not the non biological parents responsibility. Usually where the non biological parent has not been hands on with the child for long periods. As is the case here.

Again, stating that this child will have to be provided for, is simply wrong. Non of us no and there is a good case for not providing for the child, due to the circumstances.

A quick Google will tell you 'child of the family' and its implications are not clear cut. He hasn't seen or provided for the child for 4 years. The child has an involved father. Both will be relevant[/quote]
I have paralegal equivalent qualifications. What are your legal credentials?

I agree with you @Unknown83.

The thing that doesn’t make sense though is how the OP still has home rights to the property when a) she has already moved out and b) they are divorced.

The exH has the right to removed her registration upon divorce so either they are not yet divorced or the OP is being very badly advised by her solicitor.

Duh, just realised they are heading towards FDA. Baby brain moment!

I have paralegal equivalent qualifications. What are your legal credentials?

Of course you.

Despite the fact that uiu qre ignoring cases that have already happened, where the exact opposite of what you said has happened.

If you had any sort of professional training, at all. You would be advised to never suggest an a definite outcome. Never suggest 'this is definitely how this law/rule/guidance will be applied.

If you weren't taught that, you were let down. You should also be aware of precedent.

BTW I am an accountant, who has dealt with many people going through divorce/ post divorce. Also been recently divorced myself. As, has my partner.....which was a blended family. Also, I was a child of blended family and divorce.

No one can tell the op what will happen. You arguments don't actually make sense, given the 4 year gap. Which is why I advised from the beginning to get a second opinion.

Crazy! There are NOT 'children of the marriage', there is Child- one.
This is surely borne out by the fact that the first ex pays for the first child- rightly so- why woud you expect yoursecond husband t do so a well?

Just my personal experience here. I got divorced after a 10 year relationship, 2 year marriage. I bought the house while on a relationship but not married. I was pregnant when we split.

He tried to get part of the house, we went to court. I got all my deposit back and the vast majority of the equity (95%) as I could prove that I paid for all maintenance and improvements. Main reason was the length of the marriage and that I owned the asset before we married.

He pays child maintenance and that was it.

I think looking back he regrets not walking away without fighting me. He spent more on legal fees than he got.

It’s also worth remembering that advice to change the solicitor is pointless if the OP is instructing the solicitor to build a case for 50% of the total equity from before the marriage and after separation. It would just serve to wast more of her parents money.

I also don’t get why home ownership is so out of reach for her. If £180k buys her a home outright then why can’t she get a mortgage for any shortfall. She gets a wage, CMS and UC. Her net monthly income must be at least £2k. She could get a mortgage of £70-80k on top of the £100k.

For me the fact that the OP has access to £100k means there isn’t any moral reason why she needs to go after the capital he had from before they met and after they split. I’d say they are probably even on that.

Both of them have acquired capital outside of the marriage and from what I can see it is enough to meet their needs and that of their children They need only split the capital accrued during the marriage in my opinion.

If you have mortgaged house you won't get UC towards housing costs

It also depends on how the 100k plus from her parents is structured. They may want to declare it a loan for a variety of reasons. The OP has said she could get a mortgage of 50k