Help me understand needs!

[Nimbus1999]

Wife - Has increased hours from part time to full time since split. Was working part-time for a number of years to look after the children.

Has a mortgage capacity.

50% equity would mean enough to buy 2 bedroom property or a very small 3 bedroom property with the 4 children having the bedrooms and wife sleeping in lounge.

If renting, monthly rent exceeds affordability (higher than mortgage repayments) so would have to use equity to pay monthly rent eating into equity.

No other assets and 10k pension.

Husband - Was always a higher earner but has left job. Currently self employed with no income (as per filed accounts).

No mortgage capacity. Unable to buy.

50% equity would mean enough to rent. As “no income” equity will have to be used to fund rent.

Possible savings and £200k pension.

Childcare 50/50 for a few months, prior to that wife primary carer.

What would be a fair split?!

I think you both need to rent, if the children are going to be living with both of you. Or buy a small properties and squeeze everyone in.

When did he leave his job and why couldn’t he return to that job?

Surely wife is entitled to part of that £200k pension and savings?

50:50 split with both parties renting or choosing to buy small property and making do

Left job a year ago. Nothing to stop him doing what he is qualified to do.

And it makes no difference that I didn’t work / worked part time for numerous years to look after our young family, whilst he progressed his career and worked full time with no childcare responsibilities? That’s all irrelevant now?

Well, arguably the pension should be split too so the equity is not 50/50 in the house if he's sitting on the pension.

But 50/50 equity / pension right? Instead of say 60% equity / 40% pension (I know £1 pension is not the same as £1 equity but just for arguments sake), still 50/50.

60% equity would mean we could buy a slightly bigger 3 bedroom place which would benefit everyone.

I don't understand how 60% equity split would help 'everyone'. Surely it just helps you? Husband also needs a house big enough to accommodate the children, surely?

Who will the children be living with? Will it be 50/50 shared care or will one of you be the primary carer?

Could you stand nesting?

The children need a proper home and the mother needs a flipping bedroom, so I’d buy a family house with enough small beds that everyone has a bedroom (even if 2 kids have to share) and buy or rent a 1 bed flat. (You may be able to just stay in your family house, or you might need to downscale to free up some assets to rent a flat.)

These to be owned jointly, when the kids grow up, sold and split equally.

Parents to move between the house and the flat - 1 week on, 1 off - this is assuming they both want 50/50 - or whatever time split works.

It’s not ideal but your other choices are poor

Pension split you should sort out now.

That might help galvanise him back into work.

Unfortunately from what I’ve read, by getting a full time job you may have shot yourself in the foot when it comes to divorce settlement. It seems women who work part time can often argue for a greater equity share. However when it comes to getting a mortgage, working full time should be a good move.

Why is your ex not working? Do you think the situation of him not working will go on for long? If it is an interim blip that situation may change.

How old are the children and who will they live with. If they live with you, you may still be able to argue for 60% equity, particularly if they are younger. A lot in divorce is down to negotiation. If not then 50:50 from what I’ve seen is more likely.

like others have said, it’s the total pot you have to consider if medium to long marriage so both people’s pensions, savings and house.

How would it be relevant? You both worked - your work split between raising the kids and outside the home and kids just outside.

What matters is the kids have a home and neither of you are on your uppers. A fair split of assets is always 50/50, even if it can’t happen for a bit.

If you can I’d look at nesting, then eventually you split it all 50/50 when they are grown. If he gets back to work (which he should, you might be able to achieve that earlier.

Why has the exH left his job and reduced income to zero? Is it a deliberate self-deprivation to avoid a fair settlement?

The pension pots are part of the marital assets and should be included in the 50 50 split so as his pension pot is £190k higher than hers, her share of the house equity should generally be £190k higher than his.

Does your calculation of “equity” include his pension of £200K?

He will be expected to work to earn his own income - if he chooses not to then you’re not expected to compensate for that.

Well, that's the negotiation. Arguably it should be 50% of the house and 50% of the pension. But a good compromise to me would be that you get more of the house and less (or none) of the pension. But he might not feel the same way.

I'm assuming he left his job around about th time of the divorce? How convenient.

I didn’t really have a choice re working full time. He doesn’t pay any maintenance so I have to fund the mortgage, kid costs and all the bills. What else was I suppose to do? I’m in the family home but it is being sold as I cannot afford to stay there once the fixed period runs out.

If was always earning over £100,000 per year but left post separation and now has his own business which as per the business accounts last year, was loss making. He wants to continue doing this and is using a large redundancy pay out post separation to fund this. He has no intention of going back to full time employment.

The children were living with me except EOW. But I asked for a greater equity split to buy a new family home and now he is insisting 50/50 childcare. All 13 and under.

If he was working and earning £100,000 (as he did our whole marriage), I might have been able to argue for a bit more equity off set against pension as I earn a lot less. Obviously that is not going to happen but his decision to not have any income, impacts me and the kids as well and they will have to adjust to living in a 2/small 3 bedroom property.

I don't understand why not? At the end of the day, the assets are separate to long term income. I think you should talk to your solicitor but at the very least, you need to be getting 50% of ALL assets. Including the pension. Then from there, he needs to fund his lifestyle, and you yours.

But no, you don't get less of the assets becuase he's not earning.

Also, the redundancy pay out is an asset so if that's sitting in an account somewhere, theoretically, you should get half of that too.

I think with 50% childcare and you having proven that you gave up work to support his career, it would be very difficult for hi to convince a judge that you should get less than 50% of the total assets - house, cash, pension.

I'd think a judge would award you at least 50% probably more as they will not be very impressed at his trying to manipulate you out of money because you split up.

Have you totted up the total pot of all pensions, equity and all savings prior to split.

where would you stand with 50% and where would you stand with 60%?

is there any government help available with interest payments?

If your kids are younger you may find that any judge would lean towards giving you a greater share. This happened in my partners case where the ex who had dragged the divorce out for 3 years got awarded a mesher unbelievably at court to stay in house for another 4 years and 60% of pot, but she was a part time worker. My partner is not a high earner. For context I have no clue how she can really afford the mortgage but the judge didn’t want to uproot the kids - youngest is 9.

So to put in context, if your kids are younger you may have more negotiating power than you think, particularly if you are still in the family home.

50% equity I hopefully can buy a tiny place with my maximum mortgage capacity (and literally very few on the market at this price). It won’t be impossible but certainly difficult to buy at this price range. 60% would buy a slightly bigger, more suitable 3 bedroom property as more on the market in this price range. Downsizing from a 5 bed property now.

All of this really depends on what happened with his job and when it happened. If he lost his job and was made redundant particularly in a field where job prospects are poor his decision to change careers might be seen as a valid choice. If it was something that happened prior to the split then it will be assumed to be unintentional. These things are always a bit of a lottery in court and a lot depends on facts and detail. The judge may well assume that he is capable of earning an income when deciding on a split but not the same as before taking account of a lot of factors presented at the time. For example that he is taking on more parenting and can’t commit to his old career. Lots of men and women get away with suppressing income in divorce cases whilst many don’t.

The biggest issue for the OP is that her argument that a parent with 50% parenting responsibility can rent applies to her as much as him. And at the end of the day 50% of the available capital will probably be enough to rent until they both earn more or the children are mature. Home ownership is a want for both of them.

As there are children, and it is at least a medium length marriage a 50:50 split is a reasonable starting point.

I'm not sure why his redundancy payment isn't included in the pot.

If the pensions are split 50:50 and the house is split 50:50 would you be prepared to trade pension for cash now? To get a bigger house?

Where is he living at the moment? Presumably he is housed in some fashion if he is having the kids 50% of the time.

He is currently renting and will continue to do so.

He has spent all the redundancy pay out I believe, although is refusing to give financial disclosure. Solicitors have had my Form E for nearly a year. Will need to update now!

I would definitely trade pension for a slightly bigger house now, just to make life better for all of us.

He is adamant it will only be a 50/50 split though so it will be a struggle.

He is adamant it will only be a 50/50 split though so it will be a struggle.

You keep saying this. But does this include 50/50 of the pension? because he doesn't actually get to decide that. if you can't agree, it needs to go to court and the court will most likely suggest 50/50 of ALL assets, including pension.

And if that's the case, he can just hand over half his pension OR he can agree to give you more of the house equity in exchange for you leaving his pension alone.