95% equity

[LDA123]

Is this fair……. There is only enough equity for 1 of us to buy a house. Downsize from 5 bedroom detached to 3 bedroom semi with 4 children. I work 4 days per week. Ex starting new business and renting. Kids with me full time except 4 nights per month.

Taking into account pension/savings (all to him), the overall split will be 60/40.

It doesn’t seem fair that he will have no “liquid” assets from the sale of the house but then equally, without 95% we would struggle to buy and renting is very expensive.

Anyone been in a similar position?

Seems fair, the kids need a home

We're going to be in a similar situation. Ex has large pension which will offset me having house. I have kids 100%. I did tell him, though it might look like I get the better deal at the moment, he'll be better off in the long term.

Will he be able to house himself adequately to allow kids to stay ( and why is he only having the 4 nights a month )?

He won’t be able to buy no. He seems happy renting. Also would struggle to get a mortgage as no longer employed and only just setting up a business so I believe normally they need 2 years of accounts. 4 days is all he wants them.

He’ll definitely be better off in the future - a massive pension and hopefully a successful business. I’ll have a house and a very small pension.

This is definitely true - in the long term, he will be better off. He is not seeing it that way though and thinks it’s unfair that he isn’t getting more of the house equity. Which I can understand.

He is renting a 2 bedroom place with triple bunks, sofa bed etc. So the children can stay but obviously the space isn’t huge.

Financial orders take into consideration all marital assets - pensions can very often be the most valuable asset even if not liquid. Has he had a CETV?

A judge will need to see that it is a 'fair' (but not necessarily equal) split, 95% of the equity in the house is a huge share but if it matches the pension that he's retaining then it should be OK. You must both have legal advice.

His pension is £200,000 and cash assets £40,000. The equity would be £270,000. 100% of this would be used for a new house and even that will be tight (for a 3 bedroom with kids sharing and me in box room).

My solicitor seems to think it’s fair but obviously he thinks it’s outrageous.

Understanding pension value is key
he may currently have a pot of 200k but £1 of pension pot today is not equal to £1 equity as it’s not liquid asset especially if long time to be able to liquidise it.

however a settlement will prioritise housing of c
children - but does not require mortgaged house and they may consider you are also able to rent to equalise housing a bit more .

have you got a solicitor?

Yes I have a solicitor and he is proposing what I have said.

The issue is, renting is way more expensive than a mortgage and not secure. It’s already tight month to month, an extra £300+ per month will be hard.

As hun how much of his pension he is proposing swapping for more equity.

I’m not saying do it - you need to house the children - but it might focus his mind on what he is getting, rather than what he’s not getting.

Ask him*

100% of the pension. So he’ll have £200,000 and I will have my pension of £13,000.

If he wants some more house equity then he doesn’t get all the pension - that’s what you need to highlight to him to focus his mind. He can’t have it both ways.

Or tbh just leave it to lawyers if you’re not in much communication.

He also has £40k savings whereas I have zero savings. I generally go overdrawn month to month. I pay currently 100% of everything (mortgage, child costs etc) and he pays SCM.

Without understanding the tripe of oension and it’s real worth ( not current pot value) it’s hard to say. As stated it’s not £1 pension pot = £1 equity. So as example) might be 0.7 or 0.5 pension to equity in which case you’d be getting much higher share of assets and leaving unabke to buy.

but you have a solicitor who should be telling you this and guiding you through. What does your ex think / want

A few questions OP based on your other thread:

1. Is the 40k the redundancy payout he received AFTER your separation?
2. Is he using the redundancy money to currently live on / start his business?
3. Is he using the redundancy money to pay you CM at the old rate i.e. based on what he was earning while he was employed rather than a lower rate now he’s not in that job?
4. Are you earning 70k a year / 4k take home per month?
5. Has your solicitor explained to you that £1 pension < £1 equity? They are not of equivalent value

Having all the information in one place might help people give you more accurate advice based on their own experiences. For example, redundancy money can be ring fenced / not included in the marital pot or it could all legitimately be gone by the time you get to court if he needs to live off it / is using it to pay CM at his old employed rate & hasn’t applied for a variation based on his reduced income etc.

(1) Yes received after separation.
(2) He says he is, yes.
(3) Yes, based on last financial year P60. Obv will be different next year as no job…. I am aware he could apply for a reduction now also as is no longer employed.
(4) No he hasn’t - he just said offset pension against equity. He didn’t say there were any issues with this. He is also aware of the redundancy money received post separation but seems to think that should go in the pot.

Have you both looked at shared ownership- honestly this doesn’t seem fair.
will he maintain some equity in your subsequent home?

The plan was for a clean break, not to maintain any equity. I wouldn’t want to be tied to him for any longer than necessary, relations are not good.

I don’t understand why the solicitor says this is the best course of action if it isn’t likely to stand up in court? Why would they not suggest an alternative? Is that not their job ☹️. I just want to do what is fair and reasonable to everyone, especially the children.

I earn £55k per annum plus SCM. Mortgage, council tax and gas/elec is £2,000 per month.