Husband wants all the equity

[macaroniplease]

I would love to see if anyone could offer me some wisdom or advice because my divorce process is really trying.

We are trying to be amicable about the financial split and are currently both living in the house that we jointly own (via mortgage).

It is likely that we have around £300k in equity in the house.

Husband has stayed at home since the kids were born (so ten years) and I have been working in a job that supports all the mortgage, bills, household expenses etc.

Husband has done a bit of part time work recently but nothing that would make a significant contribution to the cost of running the house.

We would both like to find three bedroom houses (to accommodate the kids when we have them) and I would be able to port the mortgage for mine.

His position in a financial agreement is that he needs almost all of the equity in order to buy a house. He would only be able to get a very small mortgage and therefore he would want £250k - £300k to be able to buy a new property.

We live in an expensive area in the SE and we are agreed that we would like to keep the kids in their current schools. To be fair to DH, houses in our village start at around £300k for a three bed.

I find it very difficult to accept that this is fair to me as I’m just left with a debt in this scenario.

So he stayed home, and damaged his earning ability and pension etc?

He needs a greater part of the equity and pension to compensate for the work he did within the home - essentially you will be paying his pension for those years as he enabled you to work more/at a higher level.

He has earnt less for 10 years whilst working more hours within the home unpaid - this must be compensated for as it has reduced his current earning potential and his pension.

I agree 70/30 would be fairer. You still have greater earning potential and can accquire a larger mortgage with your current salary - he will need a larger deposit to pay for something similar.

He would be awarded more than 50% but less than 100% of the total pot, based on recent legal advice I’ve received for a friend.

The primary focus will be on ensuring both of you can buy a reasonable home where the children can live. Of course, that doesn’t mean he has to buy where you are now but it has to be close enough to enable him to parent your children effectively.

The fact that you are younger, have a higher current salary and a higher earning potential (based on what you have said) means you will get less than 50% of the pot, but you won’t get O!

If it helps, what my friends did when they split was both get independent legal advice and then sat down and compared (honestly) what they were told, which was relatively consistent, and they amicably agreed an approach from there.

I’d ask what the split with the dc will be going forward? If it’s 50/50 then your dh will have the ability to work on the weeks he doesn’t have the dc, the same as you, and you could both either go or or get childcare. If this was the case then I’d argue for a 60/40 split in his favour. If you only see the dc eow then he would have a larger split than 60%, if you have the dc and HE only sees them
eow then it should be in your favour. Speak to a solicitor and maybe a mediator together to thrash it out.

This is why noone should be a SAHP.

He is 49 and hasn’t worked since the kids were born and your eldest is 14.

Even if he was earning £30/40k before je can’t just walk back into a job at 50 with a 15 year career break. Especially as a man. You are not starting divorced life from the same position.
The children will only need less care as they get older, but he will need to be compensated for the sacrifice he’s made to his earning potential, pension etc.

He’s unlikely to get maintenance but equity split should be in his favour.

I know so many women who have been shafted/attempted this way. Put in all the years of childcare and then told to waltz into a full time job once the hard bit is done, only to find they are not qualified in anything.

He may ask for a larger equity share so he has the time and money to retrain/reskill.

If you want DC to stay in the area and their schools, it seems mad to sell the house at all.

Have you thought of nesting? Where you don’t sell the house, you and DH each rent a little studio or one bed and then take turns being at the house with the kids?

The financial agreement for divorce can still have you as tenants in common with a % split instead of as joint tenants.

Then when the DCs have grown up and left home, you two can sell the house and use the proceeds to buy yourselves properties for old age either by yourself or with a new partner.

Nesting means too, you can see other people and have a place to bring them that isn’t where your DC live.

It would also allow DH to look for work/retrain before he needs to get a mortgage.

How will childcare be split once living separately? Do you both need three bedrooms or would one of you be able to just have two?

No one gets 70/30 unless there is an extreme imbalance around age, earning capacity or caring/disability. The OP's husband is completely unreasonable in asking for pretty much all the equity. Children of that age do not need a stay at home parent. He might get 55%, 60% at a push.

youre wrong @bigboykitty
70/30 would be completely normal for the circumstances given. I got 70/30 (well - 50/50 but with spousal that will equal 20) with similar circumstances. I know 2 people who got 90/10.

He needs to get a job and then get a mortgage of his own. If he can’t do this right away then he needs to rent. There is no right to buy just because you own the current house

When was this? Because this really isn't the way things are going in the courts now, even in very difficult circumstances.

Mine was 4 years ago.
one of the 90/10s was in the last year.

admittedly I don’t know the stats at a population level, just what happened for me.

I should have thought that half would be fair?

The outcomes that you see as typical, are highly unusual and unlikely to happen.

Hiw much % of your pension does he want? If he is suggesting say 80% of the equity. But 0% of your pension that's £70K for you.

I wont say he is totally unreasonable but nor reasonable

I was the main earner, paid the mortgage but also did all the childcare. Ex didn't have anything to do with the house or the children, and worked minimal hours in min wage jobs so he could relax more.

Court ruled he should have more equity and all my pension, as he had neither.

Given that your ex didn't work to actually do childcare and support you working, he's going to be entitled to more.

70/30 is completely plausible in a needs based divorce which this is

he will be expected to maximise his income and work full time but he’s still very likely to get higher than 50% of equity as his ability to mortgage is less than yours. Exactly how it is for sahm. Unlikely to get 100% but could be 70:30 equity and 50:50 outcomes of combine pensions

You’ll need legal advice and should look to mediation but I do t see this being a 50:50 outcome at all

if he takes 200k and can get 100k mortgage he’ll be in same boat with you taking 100k equity and 200k mortgage. Courts will be looking to that sort of basis.

he absolutely is in a much stronger position than op

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to reply.

Yes, he is definitely in a stronger position than me. I just really wanted a sense of how screwed people thought I was.

He is suggesting that he can only get a £50k mortgage to support his argument that he takes all the equity.

He’s actually a good dad and I trust that he has the kids’ best interests at heart but I need to somehow convince him that his equity split plan is unreasonable.

How old is the youngest? Do they need a SAHP? Have you enabled him to stay home beyond the point it was needed? (And I would say the same about a SAHM too - all SAHPs should be going back to work as soon as they can if they want to maintain any kind of earning potential in future)
You both need to accommodate the children but you also need to take a % of the equity otherwise you'll be paying off a huge debt forever and enabling him to take out very little debt.
Maybe you can't each afford 3 bedrooms. Will you be having them 50/50? If so you may have to consider having them share or having one bedroom be a shared room between the parent and child with the parent sleeping in the living room when the child is there, or sharing with the child. As the kids get older and become teenagers they may choose to stay more with one parent or the other so they don't necessarily need two full bedrooms each.

No. It wouldn’t.

They have made the decision as a family, that one will contribute the finances, and one the unpaid rest.

But, one has a career up and running and thus a much higher earning potential possibly for the rest of their life, but certainly for the next few years. It is fair that that is evened out.

So he can only earn £12k a year?!
Even a minimum wage full time job would be £23k a year enabling him to borrow at least £75k and more likely £100k if he has a good LTV.

But is it actually a given that he needs a mortgage? I get why he wants one, most people want one but if they can't afford one, then they rent. Why can't he?