Is this fair? Paying back house deposit.

[lurchersforlife]

I am getting divorced after a ten year marriage and we are working on a settlement. stbx was unfaithful and was originally guilt-ridden and saying he wanted nothing, but now that's changed, maybe because ow has dumped him and he's in the shit. We've actually been separated 2 years but only now moving to a divorce. I've stayed in the family home and he is staying with friends.

I'm the main earner and he earns very little. He was a sahd as lack of career made it a no-brainer that he would do that role and not me. He's also 9 years older then me so no career not one he have up.

We have very little in terms of assets - a car probably not worth £2k that I need to get to work. About £30k house equity and no savings. I have quite a decent pension.

I can borrow £18k to take on the mortgage on my own (only my income was taken into account for it anyway) and he wants that minus fees plus £20k when the dc leave uni. HE doesn't want any of my pension as he thinks he's too old to really benefit (early 50s now).

I think it's too much - it's more than the assets we have now but he says because his dm gave us £60k 12 years ago when we first bought a house he's being more than fair. I think that shouldn't come into it as it's not my fault that's mainly gone - he made all our financial decisions when we were together and wasn't exactly great at it. Solicitor thinks we can negotiate him down but is also worried about a judge not signing off on it as he has nothing really and won't get a mortgage.

Any thoughts? With the additional mortgage payments now and him paying nothing for the dc I feel like I'm going to be subsidising him for ever now.

The house is worth 160k. He is not entitled to half the value of the house. He is entitled to half of what's left after the mortgage has been cleared with the bank. So half the 30k it has in equity.

Whether it's a straight 15k or slightly less or slightly more depending on the judge's analysis is to be seen.

But he is not entitled to 80k based on the houses value of 160k.

It doesn’t matter that the house is worth £160k, he doesn’t get £80k of it.

What matters is the difference between the house’s worth and the remaining mortgage.

OP, is this difference what you mean by equity? Or is the £30k something else?

How long you have been married comes into it as well. It isn’t as simple as 50/50.

Unless the 60k from his parents was ringfenced to him, I don't see how he can lay legal claim to it now?

It's odd that there isn't still at least 60k equity?

If he plans on having the children 3 nights he is almost at a 50/50 childcare arrangement in which case no maintenance applicable?

If he came after your pension they would value it now and it would be part of the award now....not in the future. I'd see if you can negotiate a bit but tbh it's not a terrible offer because pension is excluded. Is it fair? Probably as fair as women who get settlements beyond their earning capability because they facilitated their husband's careers.

I bet you will be far better off than him. Two people cannot come out of a marriage unscathed financially. So it's best to accept that and move on before he decides to take you for the pension.

It's a nasty situation but it's a situation women have been in for decades.

You really need to get good , strong legal advice.

Randoms on here aren't in a position to know all the ins and outs of your relationship and exact contributions in terms of money and advice.

Get 3 valuations on the house and use the middle one in the divorce.

Take child maint out of the equation as that's separate.

Do either of you have a pension? If you do it's the amount you saved during the marriage.

The starting point is 50%. Doesn't matter if you did have 60k and you remortgaged that's gone now and won't be included. If you spent it on the house then that's reflected in the valuation.

In your shoes op, I'd offer him 50% of the equity and take him off the mortgage. Once that's all done go via cms for cm.

If he doesn't accept it, then he can go down the mediation and court route but he'll end up with less as the courts etc will burn through the equity in no time at all

The thing is, if he had not put in the 60k, would you have been able to afford the house.
if you consider the 60k shared between you, then 30k was his.
However, due to a joint decision, the 60k is replaced in value by 30k in equity and 180k in mortgage.
So to buy him out, you need to pay him £15k.

What he is also entitled to (at least if you were in Scotland) is half the value of your pension between when you got married and when you split up (so if I recall correctly, this is calculated from the CETV) - do you know how much this is? if it equates to more than £20k, I would agree his ask for £20k.

The thing is, if he had not put in the 60k, would you have been able to afford the house

He didn't. His parents did.

And looking at what the OP says about the financial decisions he made, it looks like it's on him that the 60k equity is now down to 30k.

So essentially, he spent his half of the 60k equity on stupid choices.

This. He’s been a stay at home parent, your career benefitted from him doing this. He should get at east hal the equity, half the assets, and half your pension.

if kids are younger and hes still caring for them then he should get more.

if he were a woman that would be the resounding virdict

Ah I missed the point that he was the SAHD. in that case yes, he will be entitled to more, based on this. Your solicitor will advise, but you should be ready for the shock at the figure they come back with.

But he hasn't been a sahd for 2 years and he chose to leave - I didn't kick him out. He did keep up the morning and after school care but he hasn't been a sahd. And I resent the idea that he enabled my career. My career is down to me. Yes, had I had more time off when the dc were babies it would have slowed my progress perhaps but he doesn't get the credit for my career.

He's not a woman and I don't think he's conducted himself as the typical sahm does. Do their husbands typically take over everything as soon as they walk through the door at 4.30 and run everything at weekends and in school holidays? Do they tell their husbands that they see them (the husbands) as the main parents?

Well, no, it would not be possible to re-mortgage a house if both parties on a mortgage did not agree. It’s being retrospectively cast a stupid decision as he went off with someone else (this latter point is the stupid part).

But he hasn't been a sahd for 2 years and he chose to leave

He only hasn't been sahd for the last 2 years because he chose to leave.

If a woman left her husband, why should she then be disadvanted in the divorce for it? She left because she wanted to leave the marriage as is her right. She still was a SAHM all those years to the benefit of the family and detriment to her own career and pension.

Your STXH is entitled to half the assets of the marriage less any debts - £80k (half the value of the house) plus half your pension. Not half the equity in the house. Really surprised you don't understand this. So what's he's offering is a very good deal.

Of course when most couples split this forces them to sell the home. You can't leave one partner completely destitute and we have a no fault divorce system so it doesn't matter what he did to split you up. You then look at maintenance issues and in the past the courts would have expected you to pay spousal maintenance - but now they prefer a clean break in relation to spousal support. He might however need to pay you child maintenance if they live with you full time.

In my case when I divorced my XH wanted us to stay in the home so I borrowed as much as I could on an interest only mortgage to give him 30 percent of his share of the house (our pensions were similar). The other 20 percent was left as a charge on the deeds of the property payable when both DC left adult education. I paid that back 12 years later when I downsized. Obviously it was a bigger sum as the house had appreciated in value.

If you agree a very disadvantageous deal with your XH there's a chance the courts will refuse it as they will not agree to a divorce and financial settlement that impoverishes one partner at the expense of the other. So be careful OP.

The court doesn't care if you're bitter he never worked and had an affair. It's irrelevant who put in a deposit and whose salary the mortgage was based on, He's entitled to 50 percent of the assets. I'd say that to a man in your shoes.

Well if there was no abuse and she left because of her own infidelity I think she should get what is fair, but not that the man should have to be eternally grateful and credit his career to her. But all this 'if he was a woman' is irrelevant. He isn't a woman. I don't think our set up was comparable to the typical career father/sahm household, I really don't.

You’re not seeing this in the eyes of the law
unfor you find yourself in a position that many people do ( typically men)
the law will look to the needs of each party - and if he plans to have kids 3 nights a week then his housing needs are as great as yours - and equity - meaning you should both exit on similar footing - regardless of how you entered ( for the most part )
you need to realign your thinking

Unfortunately OP it matters less what he did, than what it can be demonstrated that he did. So on paper yes he was the SAHP who did school drop offs and pick ups and could argue that his earnings and pension were compromised as a result.

I fear that your anger with him will end up hurting you financially. He said he wouldn't ask for anything yet here he is asking for money, so don't believe him about your pension.

Can you sell and buy something smaller when the time comes so you can pay him off ?

And in the eyes of the law his infidelity is not relevant to your settlement

btw lots saying he’s entitled to 50%
hes not
hes entitled to a fair share of ALL marital assets. That could be higher than 50% or you may agree or him be awarded less than 50%( same for you)
as he’s older he may well be entitled to more on that basis

That's irrelevant. You accepted the set up. You never had to go part time to accommodate sick days at school, covering the school holidays with all your leave etc.

Anyone should be able to leave the marriage and their legal status to what they are entitled to shouldn't be wrapped up in that.

At the end of the day, if he was the SAHP, which you yourself agreed as a couple he should be, then the courts will factor that in. As they rightly should.

Bouledeneige It's the equity not the value I'm sure. I briefly got confused by a pp who used the value figure but my solicitor has said it's the equity that would be considered an asset, not the house itself. I feel out of my depth with a lot of this but I know that if we sold the bank would obviously have to be repaid so we wouldn't have the £160k to share out between us two.

This.

OP it’s like you’re choosing to not be OK now with the fact he was a SAHP etc because now it doesn’t suit you that he was but you married him, you had children with him, you agreed for him to not work etc.

if it was a major issue then surely that’s something you’d have discussed before any of the above things happened? Ie no marriage or kids before he gets a decent job etc.

Yes
equity is available for sharing
sell price mess outstanding mortgage less selling costs even if not selling)

@Bouledeneige you have mixed it up. It's the equity not the value that is divided. I'm surprised you are confused about that etc...

Op, what's the actual cetv / value of your pension?