Why is my solicitor asking this ?

[SeeingRed]

H & I are divorcing after a long marriage.

There's more than enough assets between us for me to retain the family home for the teenage kids and I to live in for the forseeable future. Allocating this to me would leave plenty of other assets for H to use/cash-in in order to buy somewhere for him to live.

Given this fact, I don't understand why my solicitor has asked that I research and print out details of "other suitable accomodation to meet yours and the children's needs".

Currently there doesn't seem be that much property available in the local area at present and I'm really not sure whether I should be looking for details of any property that we could just about shoehorn the kids and I + belongings into (costing about 1/2 the value of the house we want to stay in) or property in less pleasant/inconvenient areas (approx 2/3 of the current house value), or slightly smaller property in the local area (approx 3/4 to 4/5 of the current house value or other similar value properties. If the the total joint assets were lower so that we'd need to sell the family home and both get smaller properties/move to cheaper areas, I'd understand her request but that we're fortunate to not be in that situation.

"Suitable for meeting our needs" could be rather subjective too.

Circumstances are such that only 1 child is prepared to go and visit H once we are in separate homes and even then they might not stay over (he's unlikley to move any distance away at all) so I'm guessing that his actual needs are a 2 bed room house/flat or would a court consider that we both need a house the same size and value ?

I'm stumped as I've only just read the e-mail from the solicitor and she wants this first thing tomorrow as she's about to go on holiday for 2 weeks.

Any advice ?

[millymollymoomoo]

They are trying to assess if staying there is reasonable or you are housed beyond your needs eg in a large 5 bed when a smaller 3 bed would suffice
theyre also looking at what staying there means in terms of your asset share vs your ex overall asset share and if this is imbalanced wound a house said be preferable and still adequately house you and children

[Circular]

As well as earlier reply, would also depend on whether affordable for you to run current house. Also, if it creates a large imbalance in asset split, court may not sign it off.
May be possible for an agreement to buy out ex’s remaining share further down the line. Either by remortgaging or selling.

[OnceUponAThread]

The courts will generally say that you both needed homes that can adequately house all the children.

How old are the teenagers? The courts will also consider everyone's housing needs to drop substantially when they turn 18.

You say there are loads of assets, enough for you to keep the house, but it depends what those assets are. You also both need to be able to fund retirement (for instance).

Also - does STBX agree with you keeping the house? If he's pushing for it to be sold then property particulars are a useful tool.

In terms of what you put forward - it does help to be realistic, but also to leave negotiation room.

I see a lot of (usually women) who want to stay in the family home, putting forward properties for themselves that are the same (or nicer and more expensive) than the FMH.

Then for their exes they put forward grotty flats at half the cost. Generally I see judges frown on that.

On more than one occasion in FDRs I've seen judges basically discount the wife's suggestions entirely because they're unrealistic, and focus on the man's. (It's not always man v woman that way round, but 99% of the time).

Where both sides are reasonable, judges are more likely to land somewhere in the middle (if that makes sense).

The expectation is that both parties will have to cut their cloth. With later age teens, there may be interim measures such as staying in the FMH until exams are completed and then sell and split.

This could work against you, because once the kids are finished at school your needs are deemed to be far less, so the split is more likely to be 50/50. Selling now could swing equity in your favour.

[SeeingRed]

@OnceUponAThread

Youngest child is not yet 15. This is the only child likely to visit H and they've already said they'd prefer not to stay over although I suppose there is a remote possibility that they'd stay overnight if H moved some distance away but at present I cannot envisage him moving more than a few miles away. It's H's own fault that this is the only child prepared to stay in touch, I've been nothing but impartial about the whole thing but I don't want to go into too much detail here about why only 1 child is prepared to visit.

Will the court allow my needs to include providing a bedroom for University aged children when they are not away at Uni ? It seems wrong for adult sized teenagers to have to share rooms with bunk beds to free up enough equity so H can have a similar sized house to accomodate just himself and a teenager who only wants to visit but not stay over. It has to be said that as long as I've know him, H's needs have always been "more than he currently has", he's always been a glass half empty person.

STBXH is of the mind that if he isn't going to live in the family home then we shouldn't get to either. The costs of selling the family home and buying another just to satisfy this mindset of his would be a terrible waste of our joint funds IMHO (potentially up to £20,000) , and it's not like we have any spare bedrooms already plus this house is ideal for our circumstances and ideally situated for our respective school/workplaces (which will continue for the next 5 years after which point I'll be able to re-evaluate and potentially downsize).

I've put forward details of a couple of properties on "less pleasant roads" in the area. The difference between the asking price of those and the value of the current family home isn't much once you take in to account the actual costs of going through with a move. They will also present us with traffic and parking issues which will add stress to our daily lives.

I didn't think it was my place to put forward possible properties for H so I didn't, plus as I said, he's ALWAYS been a glass half empty person so nothing will be right for him especially as he currently exhibits Oppositional Defiant Disorder traits. We'd NEVER have got this house bought if I hadn't pushed to make it happen all those years ago.

I truly never wanted to have to divorce but it's 100% down to H's unreasonable behaviour. It'll be infuriating and saddening for the kids and I, with what we've already endured, if he gets to continue that behaviour by insisting we must move elsewhere sanctioned by a court under the guise of freeing up enough equity for him to have a house with spare bedrooms.

Sorry, I've just ranted haven't I !

[rocketfromthecrypt]

You want to stay in a big house in the nice area. Maybe he, not unreasonably, wants a big house in a nice area too. Your solicitor needs to establish if what you want is realistic given the size of the pot being split.

[rocketfromthecrypt]

And what teenagers say now might not be what they say next month or next year. The court knows this and will want to ensure fairness. He's being no more selfish than you.

[OnceUponAThread]

@SeeingRed - no problems for ranting. All this stuff can be incredibly frustrating.

In my experience (as long as there is enough funds to do so) you'd both be expected to have similar houses, that had enough bedrooms for the kids and were close enough for schools.

The fact that the children don't want to stay over is slightly irrelevant (courts generally want children to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, and child maintenance aside child arrangements are separate to finances).

There's also a few things at play. Mortgage raising capacity (for both of you), savings, pensions and so on.

I guess the nuts and bolts question is that if you keep the house - can you afford to buy him out and can he then be housed appropriately.

Property particulars are one part of the puzzle, but judges tend to take the view that unless there's enough liquid assets sloshing around for him to get appropriate accommodation then both parties will have to cut their cloth.

Would advise suggesting property particulars for both parties. And trying to make sure that those properties are not miles apart. (If one party says they need a 5 bedroom house in Dulwich Village or Hampstead, but their ex only needs a two bedroom flat in Streatham or Finsbury Park, then this is typically viewed as nonsense).

You want to look at the whole puzzle of the finances and then think about what's important to you. I'd do this ok two bases:

1. if you keep the house, how can he reasonably house himself. What can you raise to buy him out. How much mortgage can he (affordably) get, what can you give up to offset (savings, pensions, investments). See if you can find a way to make it work (there might not be one, there often isn't)
   
   
2. if the house has to be sold. What is a reasonable level of property for you to both buy. Say you need three bedrooms each, within half an hour of school (or whatever). What is the cost level on that, and can the assets be split so that mortgages required leave people on an even income footing.
   
   With the youngest at 15, there is a possibility of staying out for 3 years, selling and splitting the assets then. However, even though Uni-age children often live at home, your housing needs are usually deemed to be less.
   
   It's really hard to reason through without concrete numbers - but an example of how it might work out is something like...
   
   Family home worth £1.5mn (£150k mortgage left). 4 bedrooms.
   Two children.
   Both parties need a three bedroom house. While not as nice, you can achieve that near enough to schools with £900k.
   Husband earns £100k, Wife earns £50k.
   Husband's mortgage capability is probably somewhere around £300k (Will be lower than expected because of child maintenance with no overnights).
   Wife's mortgage capability is £180k.
   There's £100k in savings
   
   Husband gets £600k equity + mortgage = £900k house
   Wife gets £750k equity + mortgage = £930k house.
   
   Savings split fairly evenly.
   
   In that case wife keeping the house might be tricky. Because there's not enough cash assets to give him an equivalent property.
   
   That said, if husband has a comparatively big pension, they might choose to offset that, give savings to him, and wife remortgage to release some ready cash, and you could make the numbers just about squidge.
   
   Obviously a nonsense example based on fake figures. But that's the kind of big picture type of dividing and thinking you want to have in mind.
   
   Does that make sense?
   
   Property particularly are a tiny piece of this. And people usually high ball their needs. A bit of that is fine, because you want wiggle room to negotiate. But within the context above, you want to be suggesting something that is reasonable.

[SeeingRed]

@rocketfromthecrypt

You want to stay in a big house in the nice area. Maybe he, not unreasonably, wants a big house in a nice area too. Your solicitor needs to establish if what you want is realistic given the size of the pot being split.

It's nice enough but certainly not one of the nicest areas of the town at all. I've lived here for well over 30 years.

The house is mid range for size in the area. Many nearby have been split in to flats in more rtecent years which has made the area less desirable for families according to the Estate Agents.

The legal guidance seems clear that it's not about wants. It's about needs.

[OnceUponAThread]

Sorry - few typos in there (must always proof messages) but hopefully you get the drift.

[Xenia]

I was the higher earner and keen to keep our home so I bought out my ex and took on a mortgage of about £1.3m and he got all mmy life savings, shares, everything other than some equity in the house. He was unable to afford to buy out the house from me which is the reason I got it not he.

you could just refuse to give details of other homes - if there really really are a lot of assets in addition to the equity in the house then you might well want to try to get the house out of the divorce. My ex got enough from me to buy a 4 bed detached with no mortgage near by and never once has offered to have the children for a night.

On adult children our court sealed consent order says I (the higher earner) pay school fees and university costs whoever the children live with. The twins are now in year 5 of further education (they are doing law) and live at home (they were away for first degree). Their sisters also moved back for 2 years of law school after university so do not assume once children are 21 they don't need a family home. Even after that they can be at home. My older son moved out at 26.

[SeeingRed]

@rocketfromthecrypt

And what teenagers say now might not be what they say next month or next year. The court knows this and will want to ensure fairness. He's being no more selfish than you.

Those not prepared to engage with H now have been steadfast in this matter for a looong time.

Personally I believe they'll have flown the nest and be established in their own homes before any rapprochement might occur, unless H has a damascene moment before then.

[Soontobe60]

@SeeingRed

Those not prepared to engage with H now have been steadfast in this matter for a looong time.

Personally I believe they'll have flown the nest and be established in their own homes before any rapprochement might occur, unless H has a damascene moment before then.

I’m confused. How long have you been apart?
I’d be very careful that the courts won’t see your children’s unwillingness to see their father as the result of parental alienation.

[SeeingRed]

@Soontobe60

I’m confused. How long have you been apart?
I’d be very careful that the courts won’t see your children’s unwillingness to see their father as the result of parental alienation.

It's H's attitude to the older children that's alienated them from their father. I have spent years being the conciliator and peacemaker and I'm done with it all now. It hasn't been healthy for any of us. Court must surely ask the parties involved, not make assumptions.
There's a lot of stuff that could come out and would not paint H in a good light at all. I already feel guilty that I tried for years to constantly bodge over the cracks in the family dynamics please don't start prortaying me as wanting them to be alienated.
I'd like nothing more than for H to realise what he's done, how he's driven them away from wanting to be around him and to see that this pattern has been repeated over and over again in his life, with one common factor, him.
Sadly we're all still under the same roof.

[Xenia]

It was simuilar with me. I would have adored the 5 children to be with him 50% after the divorce so he knew what would be most difficult for me was if he did not even have them one night a year and did not pay a penny so that is what her did - which probably proves how awful he was as what kind of father does that?

Also my older 3 were teenagers - one was 18 about to do A levels when our divorce was through (my husband did not leave our house in terms of moving out for the whole 7 months it took for negotiated financial settlement, decree absolute., house transfer to my name, remortgage (that bit took months at the end which was so annoying) and transfer of funds to his account - only at that moment would he leave and woudl both lawyers (I paid his and mine) agree he could be forced to leave.

My point here is that my older 3 individually before I applied to divorce asked me to divorce him due to his treatment of them at home so I always say in a sense it was a child led divorce - okay the 18 year old was an adult in upper sixth but still in a sense a child for divorce purposes. No parental alienation at all - he chose to make them view him like that because of his conduct, what he said and what he did at home - we reap what we sow. I remember our last family holiday abroad when he was particularly bad during which I decided to divorce and told him when I got back, how for the 4 of us older ones (youngest 2 were very little) it was like having a difficult person who was a burden on us all holiday, almost having to do shifts of "care" of having to tolerate or be with him (and obviously very sad for him too that it had come to that and indeed 20 years on now I am very happy he is happy with a new wife).

I think unless you have been in a home with a man like this as I and Simply and our children have been peopole just cannot understand how children might want their father not there - it seems the antithesis of love and impossible but is very possible if you have to tolerate these men (and of course in some marriages ig can be the woman instead) day in day out. In our case loads of people think he is wonderful as he is like Jekyll & Hyde - one thing at home and another outside the home - we could not care less what third parties think of him, it is just Christmas every day even almost 20 years on to wake up with him here.

[SeeingRed]

Thanks for sharing @Xenia

I would echo your turn of phrase that this is a "child led divorce" situation.

I would like to think that H will shape up and find someone else. A new broom might sweep away his self-indulgent navel gazing ways away for a while to enable him to see what he has thrown away in life, but in the long run I feel he would revert, same shit, fresh victim.

I just want back more of my former self that withered whilst being married to him.

[Samballama]

They’ll assess based on number of children under 18, not their preferences at that time.

[Xenia]

I was in a better position being the higher earner as I could afford to buy my ex a house so kept our home and the older children were not prepared to live with him given how he treated them and a court would be unlikely to split the siblings (and their father did not want them to live with him which made it all much easier too as the only thing we were arguing over was how much money I had to pay him). Divorce is quite complicated because every couple is different so the rules are relatively vague to suit all the different kinds of set ups.

In this case if there are a lot of assets - enough to keep the home and house the husband including for when the children visit him (even if they choose never to do so) then there may be no reason the wife should not be awarded the house but it will all depend on the details, assets, income, debts etc.