How to meet needs of both parties when only one can get a mortgage

[InSearchOfAUserName]

How does this work out in practice? STBXH is unable to get a mortgage, while I have good credit rating. I would end up with a bigger house as I can get a mortgage and he would only be able to buy a 1 bed flat with no mortgage or have to rent. What happens in these situations, would this be seen as meeting needs of both parties? How do the courts view this?

In my experience i earn a lot more than my ex and have a mortgage raising capacity and he doesn't. Unless he gets an inheritance doubt he will ever be able to buy. But in my case my ex has never bothered to maximise his earnings. Had he never met me the best he would have ever managed is a shared house or 1 bed flat. That's life. I don't think divorce should give one person a better standard of living that they could never have afforded on their own had they not married the other person. Yes we do have kids and they are with me 100% and can't see that changing either given what accommodations he can afford. I still walked away with the majority of the house. It was very clear on the D81 form I was getting the much bigger share and the court still signed it off

The other party is likely to receive much higher % of any equity if there is any

if there are children then 1 bed flat dies not meet needs but courts don’t require mortgaged houses and will consider renting accepTable

Yep this. Assets are divided to be fair to both parties, fair in this situation will likely mean he gets a larger share because he has the lower income

A lot depends of there are children involved? Does he work? Does he have a disability that prevents him from working? Did he give up his job to look after dc, is his inability to get a mortgage because of bad credit!

A 1 bed flat is still meeting his housing needs so is renting.

If there are no kids and he has a job and you earn similar wages then a 1 bed flat is fine for him, meets his housing needs so I'd be expecting a 50/50 split in assets.

The courts don’t care if you own your own home or rent.

Your EX will be expected to maximise his income.

My OH’s EW refused to get a job and hadn’t worked for 13 years (so had no mortgage capacity as she wasn’t earning). She demanded 70% of the FMH equity & spousal maintenance. The kids were 9 & 12 at the time and lived with her.

She didn’t get spousal maintenance. She got 67.5% of the equity (which was £200k). She now rents and is spending that £200k in rent.

Shame she doesn’t bother maximising her income and she uses that money as a deposit. Her choice.

This sounds similar to my situation and I've been advised that it's unheard of for one partner to get less than 25%, so I'm interested if there are examples when you kept proportions vaguely reflective of contributions. Sorry not meaning to hijack OP! I'll be watching other comments so thanks for asking the question!

He is hopeless with money and has run up debts and spent thousands in the past without telling me. Very secretive about his finances. Self employed but has little money coming in (as far as I know) and refuses to get a job. He was a high earner when I met him. I do the majority of childcare and life admin, and I work full time. I brought assets to the marriage, more fool me.

Both of you need somewhere to live. Rent or buy won’t change that need or your share.

His maximum income will be determined by his qualifications and experience.

@CuppaTea23 I'd also be interested - my understanding is that contributions aren't relevantly, which feels very unfair in situations where the main earner/contributor is also the main carer.

The starting point is always 50/50. This can change if one person is disabled. The court won't care if your ex rents or buys provided he can.have somewhere suitable to accommodate the DC when he looks after them. You'll probably have to pension share with stbxh. How much he will get awarded will take into account of how much he will have DC. If he was looking after them say 80-90 percent of the time he'd be awarded more. Every other weekend and one night in the week probably 50/50.

Is he amicable or not though OP?

That will make a huge difference

I got 92% of the total equity in final hearing (400k ish). Though he was a MASSIVE knob throughout the process….

I think renting or shared ownership can be deemed to meet needs in some situations where one party can’t get a mortgage - more likely when that’s their own fault.

My dad gave my mum most of the house. But he got a pension off her. Which didn't work out so well for my mum in the end!