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?

Partner A

A is a CF. The higher earner wants to walk away with a mesher order or all/most of the FMH leaving their unemployed partner with no home and pittance in savings.

Guessing the OP is A??

I can’t figure it out.

As partner B I would want the additional 20k on the mortgage disregarded ( B has not benefitted - except perhaps the decorating if house is sold). So potentially a figure of 320k equity, not 300k. Plus partner A has 60k pension, I’d also want whatever amount of this was accrued during the marriage included. As the lower earner, I’d also be seeking more than 50%. I’d advise B to try and secure decent legal representation so they don’t get shafted in this. Which is what it sounds like A is trying to do.

Partner A should not get mesher
partner B needs to get more demanding and start standing up for themselves
partner b should be looking at higher 50 % of equity and pension sharing and the 20k added back in

and partner b should get this to fdr and court asap to achieve that and not be bullied into accepting anything less

You are correct, I was confusing spousal maintenance. I blame the Merlot, and thank you for correcting me.

Unfortunately Partner B does not have any spare money for legal representation and has a final hearing in 3 months after attending the first hearing. Partner B has also borrowed money from family to be able to take it to MIAM and then file Form A with court.

Just to clarify Partner B does work.
During marriage B worked part time/flexible in self employment to take DC to and from school/activities, prepare breakfast and dinner and time off for DC sick days etc.

Partner A worked full time in same career for 20 plus years.

Partner B is now working full time on a relatively low income but trying to secure better job opportunities.

As it is very unlikely any legal representation would be secured or taken to FDR, trying to predict and understand what the outcome possibilities might be in a few months time!

Why was B not seen to be main carer for dc?

During the DC younger years and beginning of secondary school they were but B left the FMH and DC stayed with A.

So now A is classed as the main carer.

B now works full time to pay rent/bills etc.

Child care arrangements have been sorted.

Why doesn’t B take monet out of the FMH to pay for a lawyer too?

Mortgage is in Partner A name and has been throughout the 12 plus year marriage.

Partner B has been somewhat naive in this !

In what way do you mean?

Has left the fmh ( when shouldn’t)
has divorced with no settlement in place
has made choices to benefit A ( ie being primary carer) then left the children and handed that back to A at a point when they are at ages no longer needing so much care before/after school etc
is renting now even though A much higher earner

B should not have left the fmh and should not have divorced without settlement needing housing suitable for them plus children

B has handed all control and leverage to A

I agree with @millymollymoomoo and given that A kept the house on their name and B off the mortgage and made them leave changing the main caregiver I would say there may be some elements of control and abuse there as well

A is a CF. The higher earner wants to walk away with a mesher order or all/most of the FMH leaving their unemployed partner with no home and pittance in savings.

This. It's embarrassing what A is demanding and I'd hope they'd be laughed out of court.

B could really really do with an hour’s worth of a family lawyer’s time.

Going back to the original question on Mesher Orders. Based on all the facts I've heard, not a chance in hell would be my conclusion now.

Agree one would hope that the court would see this for what it is which is a house money and children grab from A and get the house sold and equity split 50/50 so each can be housed and equal and split 50/50 parenting

Thank you for your helpful responses and advice so far.

Would the court be more likely to grant a Mesher Order for Partner A, given that they can clearly afford to stay in the family home (with no debt, the mortgage in their name, etc.) and keeping the children in the same home would minimize disruption and maintain their stability?

To further support this, would the court view Partner B's inability to secure a mortgage and their existing debt as signs of financial instability, making it less viable for them to provide stable housing for the children? In this case, wouldn't the court prioritize the children's stability over Partner B's immediate share of the FMH, with the expectation that the financial settlement could be deferred until the youngest child turns 18?

What was the marriage actually like? I can hazard a guess

when was the debt created during the marriage?
why is A now the main child care provider?
can A adequately house the children and stay in the area?

the aim will be for both parents to if possible maintain adequate sufficient housing whilst retaining stability

What size is the house now and what can A buy if B gets their share

mesher orders used to be v common but how courts try to avoid as much as they can- nothing here says A can’t house adequately (and to the legal definition)

Majority of debt created from Partner B after the marriage (bills and council tax) a couple thousand during marriage. (Utility bills)

Children wanted to stay with A due to it being FMH (own bedrooms) closer to school, relationship with Partner A.
quite a few reasons.

A can adequately house themselves and DC, stay in the same area by downsizing if the FMH was split and can take on a small mortgage. But only shown from Partner B providing adequate home examples to the court and A.
For example 3 bed semi-detached within 3 mile radius

Partner A home examples filed to the court are same prices as FMH but less bedrooms than FMH (For example 3 bed detached high spec)

Partner A FMH is 4 bedroom detached.

Then yes a 3 bed with 2 kids is fine