How likely is a mersher order to be granted?

[Lattelight]

Final Hearing in a few months and a mersher order has been requested.

Partner A)

Lives in FMH with 2 DC 13 and 16

House equity 300k

Ability to mortgage 160k

Local housing available (downsize but still adequately housed)

Pension 60k

Zero Debt

Partner B)

Privately renting

Adequately housed but month to month rental agreement due to Section 21 and uncertainty of long term security in private home due to costs

No mortgage capacity but possibility of shared ownership if FMH sold

Pension 5k

10k Debt

Will a mersher order be granted or FMH sold to release equity for Partner B?

Just purely on those figures it seems unlikely to be granted, as the principle is that both parties should come out roughly 50-50 and adequately housed.

But IANAL. What does your solicitor say? (Assuming you’re B, or asking on behalf of B).

Seems unlikely.

but due to ages of children it’s possible if a can argue it’s needed to not disrupt teens education for a few years

if I was to place a bet I’d say a needs to sell house or buy b out to release capital and has mortgage ability

Mesher orders are vanishingly unlikely.

As it stands there is a huge disadvantage to B that is hard to justify. The only justification would be allow the children to complete their education. But that could 5 or six years. And whilst it is not ideal to move home it’s not a show stopper. Making someone homeless sort of is.

The decision is likely to be a sale and A will need to find a local rental if they can’t buy. B would be getting a bigger slice of the equity if they are unable to work, have debt, no pension and no housing security.

To clarify,

B is in work and can't afford legal advice, has sought free legal advice and attended MIAM and then took it to court due to A refusing mediation.

A is also in work and remortgaged (a small amount prior to court proceedings to pay for solicitors and other expenses)

Very important the DC stay in the local area, still close to school and friends. Which is possible if downsized, would a court suggest private rental for A?

Why can’t A buy B out?

Sorry, I haven't been clear!

Currently 80k mortgage (20k additionally added just before court) and Partner A has mortgage capacity for another 80K.

House worth 380k so 300K after mortgage.

Partner A could possibly buy out Partner B but unsure on the % split

Very unlikely these days. Maybe a chance if the kids were older 16/17 and the order was just for a year or two for them to finish compulsory education. With a 13 year old I'd think almost no chance.

B doesn’t even have secure housing! And has debt. Plus person A has increased the mortgage on the family home
to pay for their legal fees but B has no money for proper legal advice 😳 ( if I’ve read that correctly ). Surely no sensible judge is going to approve a mesher.

Yes read correctly about remortgaging to afford legal advice, mortgage capacity report and redecorating the FMH.

B should push for an order to sell and with no mortgage ability a higher split of assets.

are there pensions too?

Is the house/mortgage solely in As name? How did they get additional mortgage amount without Bs consent. If its just in As name then B needs to register interest in the property to prevent house being put on the market without their knowledge. The additional amount taken from the house will need to be accounted for in the split I would hope.

Mortgage in As name and has been throughout the marriage.

B did put name on house deeds but when divorce was finalised it was automatically removed.
The remortgage happened shortly after that and just before court set dates.

Daft to divorce without finance consent order. This shows precisely why people shouldn’t

As they were married, it’s irrelevant whose name the house is in. At the point of divorce, there was £320k equity in the house, one pension of £60K and another of £5K and debt of £10k. So in total, £375K. B may well be awarded more than 50% of this amount so it’s almost certain the FMH will need to be sold if A can only afford a mortgage of £160k.

Thank you for all your replies.

Also wondering if anyone can shed light, at the first hearing the judge set a date for a final hearing and a date for a couple more bits of evidence to be filed to both parties and the court.

Is it common to only have a first hearing and final Hearing?

We just had one hearing. Mesher orders are usually only granted to families of high earners, like £500,000 plus. It's not usual for normal salaries.

Partner A has submitted alternative housing either equivalent in cost to FMH or exceeding. Appears to be a relatively like for like situation. Which shows that A would need all the equity to house the DC until they are older or stay in the FMH.

Partner B has been requested to submit 'suitable homes' for Partner A which are smaller (enough bedrooms for each) and around 210-250k.

Also wondering how the court makes this decision on adequate housing (submitted by both parties) if FMH to be sold or mersher order upheld due to A stating all of the equity is needed.

Who is the higher earner?

No, disruption would only be an issue if they had to change schools. Downsizing in the same area will be fine.

No it isn't and there was a recent case on this very matter as the judge in the first instance attempted to bypass the FDR. This was reversed on appeal.

I understand that lathe case mostly. But A will be arguing they need it to avoid a change. It’s also possible if they are in the middle of gcse year that it might be granted for a short period

A will be arguing they can’t downsize

This is wrong. A Mesher Order wouldn't be likely in a case like this because the higher earner could normally get another mortgage whilst stuck on the old one.

Mesher Orders are vanishingly rare unless agreed. Sometimes people agree to them if the children are older teenagers because they will get much more equity on sale than if the equity had to be split immediately because the needs of the resident spouse dramatically reduce when the children reach 18.

I haven't seen a Mesher Order imposed on someone who didn't want one in a final hearing for years. The norm is an order for sale when the fixed interest period of a mortgage ends.

If shared ownership is an option for B then its surely an option for A too?

If it involved a change of school maybe. Not to move down the road.