Can my stbxh refuse or prevent me from buying him out of the family home ?

[notalotofoptions]

Horrible divorce in progress, my husband is determined to punish me for divorcing him and therefore if I express any preference over anything he goes all out against it, even if my preferred suggestion makes sense financially.

He is older than me and decided to retire early when he realised I was serious about the divorce (given his ever increasing unreasonable behaviour) thereby giving himself a much lower annual income which he assumed I'd be ordered to top up to equalise our standards of living via spousal maintenance. So far there's been no indication from solicitors that I'd be expected to subsidise him following the divorce being finalised but of course on a low income he'll minimise any child maintenance payable to me as the resident parent.

He will not be able to afford to run the family home on his pension income and insists it must be sold. We also own a smaller holiday cottage which we had planned to move to when we both retired and it would make sense for him to live there initially, then sell it if he wants to move somewhere else but he's refusing to move out of the family home until the divorce is finalised which is making things stressful all round and not a good atmosphere for any of us.
I can afford to run the family home and we still have a teenage child at home for another few years plus older siblings coming home from University. The children want to stay in the home for the foreseeable future if possible. I'll be working for another 5-10 years so it would seem reasonable to plan to stay here 5 years.

I'm happy to have the family home properly valued and then "buy" him out by signing over other joint assets to him and possibly taking a mortgage for the difference but because he sees this as him being "thrown out" of the family home, he has seen red over this proposal and is hell bent on preventing that happening. It's enraged him to the point of physical aggression at times.

Selling both houses and buying replacement properties for each of us incurs many extra expenses which could be avoided if we kept them for the time being.

How likely is a court hearing (to be held regarding valuing and splitting our assets) to end in them agreeing with him that the family home must be sold, just because that's what he wants to happen ?

He is being unreasonable and clearly will be bitter if you stay in the former marital home while he moves out. It’s jealousy that you can afford to minimise disruption in your life.

I know he will be bitter but he chose to retire early, Covid gave him a taste of not working for a living whilst muggins here kept working to support us all.

He's already annoyed that his pension fund values at the point when he started drawing a pension are being counted as an asset when it comes to splitting our assets.

He is right he can continue to live in the family home as it is much his as it is yours atm. He presumably knows the options and doesn’t want to move out.

As to whether your plan to buy him out is a viable option, it sounds like that might be an option but you are a long way off finalising the asset split. Why argue about it until you know exactly how much you will each be entitled to and what you can both afford.

Reverse psychology and engage a solicitor to purchase on your behalf.

If he is getting enraged to the point of physical aggression I would seriously consider calling the police in those circumstances.

Might also be able to get an injunction that means he can't live in the house

Some of my circumstances are similar to yours.

Angry husband, family home and a smaller rental property.

My husband was going to move into the rental and we were going to sell the marital home. We had to live together in the same house waiting for the tenants to move out of the rental and he made my life hell for eight months.

As soon as the rental became empty he changed his mind. I moved into the rental instead because I had to get away.

It’s been a horrible year since, but he’s now got a girlfriend and suddenly he’s not so angry. We can talk now calmly. He has also admitted he was over focussed on the money.

Is there any chance you and your teenagers can move into the rental just for a while to give you some peace and get you away from the aggression?

You might need to check with your solicitor first, but it didn’t change any of my rights when I did it.

It’s taken my husband 18months to get over his anger that I wanted to leave, is there any chance do you think if you are out of sight your Stbxh will begin to see that his aggression is pointless?

In his position he’s doing the right thing by staying put. Did he do something terrible to make you want to divorce him? If not then I don’t see why everything should go in your favour and he should lose his home when it’s you that wants the divorce.

Well obviously no one should be forced to live with someone once they've decided not to

Get divorced as quick as possible - if there are enough assets and you can afford to buy him out then no, he doesn't get to choose to sell it

@LemonTT I know he's within his rights to stay in the family home and it suits him but he's alienating himself from his children because they see him act aggressively towards me and at times towards the eldest too.
His behaviour is unreasonable/at times irrational and they see that.

@Isheabastard I just can't see that it's feasible for myself and the school age teenager to move to the cottage as although it's not that far away compared to some people's holiday homes, the commuting time would be a nightmare for getting to work and school extra curricular activities and social life. We have pets to accommodate too (stbx has decided they're not his responsibility any longer). It would be incredibly cramped when the Uni students are home and it's also further away from my elderly parents who are needing more than one visit a week these days to assist them with all sorts of stuff. He was unreasonable before the divorce started so I don't think that he will ever revert to being reasonable unless he seeks help in the form or therapy or medication, suggestions I've been making for years, standing by my vows of "in sickness and in health" but he's gradually worn me down to the point I was on the verge of burnout/a breakdown and had to seek help from my GP. The children are noticeably less on edge and more cheerful when he's not around

@FloweryName Grounds for divorce was unreasonable behaviour (plenty of examples) and aggressiveness towards me when under the influence of alcohol, instances which were increasing in frequency.
We're closer to retirement than many divorcing couples and the thought of being expected to spend my retirement years with him they way he has become over the past 10 years was scary.

Get an occupation order

And a non molestation order

Physically aggressive towards you and your eldest? Fuck that.

Police.
Non molestation order.
Occupation order.

Get the nasty, spiteful little man out of the house and then prepare evidence to show court that you are more than capable of buying him out (valuations, mortgage in principle etc) but he’s being unreasonable.

I didn't know you could buy anonymously using a solicitor, that might be useful.

I'm trying to plan for the future beyond the divorce but currently he seems intent on spending all of our savings on the legal battle to get there so a quick divorce is something I can only fantasise about.

His pension income is barely enough to run even a 2 bed house so he's arguing he needs a bigger share of our assets and monthly payments from me in order to have a home suitable for having the children visit overnight him (youngest is almost 16). Will a court not see through his plan ? (as I suspect he will eventually get another job but not until the divorce finances are finalised in his favour due to him currently looking like the lower income spouse).
He was always previously the higher earner, we both work, or in his case, worked, full time.

If his income is lower he will get a bigger share. However a lot depends on the asset pool. If there is enough to fund two homes outright then you will both just get what you need.

The thing I would think about is the ages of the children. How many are in school and under 18 if the youngest is 16? Because it implies you have only one dependent who is relevant in the divorce. That would put your respective housing needs down to 2 bed properties.

I would forget about the idea he lives in the cottage or you both keep the current properties. It doesn’t work for you or him. Just sell it or use the income to rent a local property. The same might apply to the family home. He doesn’t need to accommodate a solution that allows you to keep it if it disadvantages him. If you can afford to keep it with your share then buy him out then. But stop pushing the issue. Focus on agreeing the split.

Accept you don’t agree and start using either mediation or lawyers.

@LemonTT - Mediation has been suggested but H stated that his starting position wold be that he needs at least 60% of everything we have + spousal maintenance and child maintenance (despite the fact that the dependant child has asked for reassurance that they wouldn't be obliged to stay overnight with H, because of the unpredictability of his behaviour when drinking). H has deliberately chosen to draw his pensions early (so at a lower amount p.a. than they would have been if he had continued working and paying in to them) instead of continuing to work. He's some years away from being able to draw his state pension. Are mediators and courts blind to his blatant attempt to manipulate the situation to his advantage and ignore his actual earning potential ? (which is greater than mine as his career flourished compared to mine because I was the default parent for dealing with children and the home in addition to continuing to work full time)

Property prices where we live and our total joint assets would mean that both of us could have 3 bedroom properties out of the split of our assets (mortgage free), it's just that H is making it look like we both need to live in 2 bedroom properties so that I an afford to subsidise the running cost of his post divorce home too.

Are the courts/mediators just going to turn a blind eye to him "retiring" when he is only in his fifties and expecting me to subsidise his retirement so that he can afford to run an equal sized house. Lots of people downsize in retirement. If we weren't now divorcing, our plan had been to downsize to our cottage.

Unless H's behaviour improves for the better and meaningful apologies issued in respect of previous incidents, none of the University aged children will want to spend any time with him let alone spend a night under the same roof with him, which is entirely up to them. I'm advised that the youngest will be asked where they want to live too, and currently they need reassurance that they wouldn't be forced to stay overnight with H.

There's no intent to disadvantage H, but he is hell-bent on disadvantaging me in the financial outcome of the divorce, starting with his decision to "retire" when he can't afford to unless he was living with a spouse/partner willing to subsidise him.

Op there’s so many grey areas in this situation you need proper legal advice, nothings guaranteed. I have done a quick google on the buying him out situation, and have come across one case where the partner was trying to stop his wife buying him out out of spite. And it said that as he was unwilling or unable to stay in the property, they accepted the compromise of her purchasing his share of the property rather than forcing a sale.
One thing I will say for most courts is that any unreasonable behaviour will massively go against someone. They WILL see through his actions. And as soon as he goes in there and starts demanding all kinds of properties and pensions and cash whilst trying to evict his wife and kids from their family home for absolutely no reason, they’re not going to be bending over backwards trying to take from his family to give to him. You don’t retire at 50 so you can screw your wife and kids out of money. Keep records of EVERYTHING, especially the abuse. If you’re not willing to phone the police then at least get every incident logged. You and the 16yo need to make it clear that they will not be having overnight contact with their father if that’s the case. I honestly can’t see how anyone would award any sort of maintenance from you to give to a still youngish ex who won’t get a job, who’s driven his family away through alcoholism and abuse

How old is he? If I were a judge, I would look very harshly at the fact he deprived the family of money at this moment.

Aside from anon buyer, you could call his bluff and say you can't afford to buy him out and it'll really impact your standard of living to have to pay mortgage at such a high rate, so the house needs to be sold. Might encourage him to insist on it.

For now, start to communicate about the separation and about the finances only via email. Keep a record.

Mediation is not recommended when there is a history of abuse. I can’t believe the number of solicitors who actually recommend this when they know the history. It’s incredibly damaging.

Issue form A to get the ball rolling.

Get an occupation and non molestation order.

I think if he’s in his 50’s and no health reasons for not working, it could be assumed that his income potential is greater than what he’s currently earning. I would argue this if I were you.

How long if your youngest likely to remain in the FMH? At the moment you each need a 2-bed, they don’t consider older children visiting unfortunately. If your child has said that they don’t want to even visit your ex once you separate, his needs are even less (not sure how the court would view this but at 16 your child does get to have input).

If you haven’t even issued form A yet, your youngest may be closer to 18 by the time you’ve settled finances and sold the properties. Then you will each ‘need’ less than 2 bedrooms.

It's not really "older children visiting", its a question of where are Uni student children supposed to stay in the holidays if not with their parent(s) ? Will no account be taken of their housing needs even if only for the next 3 years ?

Fair enough that they could share a room with bunkbeds but they need somewhere and if I'm responsible for topping up their maintenance grants (they do work P/T too to contribute) but I can't account for needing to provide a roof over their heads in the holidays that seems contradictory as to my parental responsibility.

He is right about the property size. As to his income situation that’s something that the court might pick up on or not. If he is able to work and is suppressing his income they might take it into account. But probably only in relation to spousal income not asset splits. If he can work he will be advised to work or claim benefits.

Fundamentally I don’t think it matters. If you can buy two homes easily then you will probably end up splitting assets 50:50. I don’t think it matters at this stage what you do with your respective shares and there is no need to push the issue of keeping both properties. It’s up to him what he does with his share and up to you what you do with your share. If you want to buy him out, then make the offer at that point. Then deal with his response.

If you end up in court your responsibility to them will be disregarded. They are adults not dependents. It will be your choice as whether you use your share and income to get a larger property. It’s not an obligation you can place on him legally and it sounds like he wouldn’t volunteer to accommodate it.

I wholeheartedly agree that your children should have a home to return to in the holidays but the reality is that if you go to court this won’t be a factor. You just have to come to terms with this, as hard and unfair as it is.

So, a 2 bed property for me and the youngest and the pets, with no room to accommodate the other 2 when they're home from Uni but a 2 bed also for H who will not actually be needing to accommodate any of his offspring overnight so plenty of room all to himself. Yep, that seems reasonable and fair 🤔.
The only spare room available to the oldest 2 in the holidays will be at H's, which
won't do their mental health any good.

If the almost 16 y.o. chooses to live with me full time, presumably child maintenance wouldn't be payable so H simply won't have enough income to pay to run his home (gas, electric, water, council tax, insurance, food, repairs) or run his car.
He must be expecting spousal maintenance and have been advised that he has a good chance of getting it if he's prepared to take the gamble of drawing his pensions early. He's also free to get a job at any time and would end up with more disposable income than I will.

It's beyond frustrating that I have to come to terms with being utterly scammed here and he's hired very expensive solicitors compared to mine so has already spent a substantial amount of our joint savings on them because he has so little income.

It’s very unlikely he will get spousal maintenance. As long as he is below retirement age and he can work he can support himself. Unless there is something you are not saying his demand will fail.

What is a bigger risk for you is that spend months and possibly years arguing the toss over the right for a larger home to house the older children. Because the last thing you want is for the youngest to age out as well. Or for a middle aged drinker to develop a chronic condition that stops them working (possible).

It sounds like the best thing is to get him out of your life. That won’t be easy but if you engage in a high conflict divorce where you both have unrealistic expectations this could go on for years. That will mess with everyone’s mental health and at the end of the day you will end up splitting the assets more or less 50:50.

This process is going to be painful and your standard of living will take a hit. It will be more painful and you will waste money on lawyers if you expect the impossible.