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.

Your proposal is as unfair as his.
he has been a SAHP for 10 years enabling the op to build a career now earning £90k

he has lost 10 years of earning potential

the fair balanced split would be more to him to make up for his earning shortfall. He will have to work but practically at 49 having not really done much employment since he was 39 it’s unlikely he will ever be close to earning what OP does. So it’s fair he ends up with 70:30 or 60:40 in acceptance of the sacrifice he made to his earning potential by looking after their dc.

the idea that they split 50:50 and sucks to be him for parenting whilst the OP built her career is so archaic I’m amazed anyone is still suggesting it

@pinkdelight- this is exactly my view and it would be the same if it was the other way around.

Who will be the resident parent or will it be a 50/50 split

I don’t read that as rude at all. I’m genuinely interested - and grateful - to hear what I’m getting wrong.

We are booking mediation to try and keep it relatively amicable.

I don’t necessarily want to get lawyers involved but have spoken.to one who gave me some headlines on the process.

I don't think it's archaic, and I agree 60:40 is probably more likely, but it's just not necessarily accepting the '10 years of sacrifice so OP could build her career' when it's more likely 5 years of sacrifice while kids weren't at school and then chose not to build his career while OP kept going at hers because she's into it and he's not so much. So it's a bit more balanced than 'he's given up everything for his wife and children' and 'she couldn't have done any of it without him'. I think the 50/50 is just being set as a starting point for the negotiation because it's madness to set it where the DH wants and sounded like OP needed to know that she doesn't have to go along with his wishes like that. Course she should be getting proper legal advice so that she knows the facts instead of being led by him - or by us tbf.

You are so wrong it's laughable, it's absolutely about 'needs'. They both 'need' to be able to house the children. The partner, in this case the husband, has lower earning potential and higher equity needs due to being a sahp for 10 years. The courts will try to put them on as equal a footing as possible and he will get a higher proportion of the equity. 70/30 is highly likely in this case.

Can exh start claiming UC now? He can add the children to his claim and 3 months of UC statements will taken as income by some mortgage lenders. Child benefit too.
But like a women in his circumstances, he will be expected to find a job and crack on with earning his keep, regardless of how hard it is to find childcare.

Would you say the same about sahm ? Because on here any father and husband earning well could only ever have done that with a self sacrificing wife at home and couldnt possibly have done it without their contribution…..

You don't need to persuade him anything, you fight hard and get it agreed by the court. You're divorcing him, your job is to fight for the best possible outcome for yourself. His opinion is of no relevance.

He is a lazy cf, who wants to continue his lazy lifestyle at your expense. The children are not tiny, there is no reason he shouldn't already be in full time work.

And yes, I would say the same if the sexes were reversed. There are lazy men and lazy women out there.

Not sure I've understood fully because of the typos, but I think that given many couples both work full-time when the DC are in school (and before) then it's self-evident that one partner can earn what the OP does (which isn't a huge amount in an expensive area of SE) without the other partner 'self-sacrificing' to stay home, so yes, I'd say it to the SAHP parent whether they were a mum or a dad.

@macaroniplease why is he in a stronger position? Your youngest isn’t far off being able to get to and from school herself and there doesn’t seem to be anything to stop him working. Because that is the crux of it he needs to work and childcare isn’t really something you can argue given the ages of your children.

But in mediation, you must hammer home to him that you are no longer going to support him. He needs to find full-time work. Your DC are plenty old enough now that he can work the 9 to 5, like most other parents.

Don't let trying to be amicable overwhelm what is fair for you both. He needs to fid a job, and a Family Court judge would say this to a woman in a similar situation.

@pinkdelight i don’t disagree.
However, on mn when a woman has been sahm then threads are full of, you’ve sacrificed your career ( even when there was none) he couldn’t have got to where he is without your sacrifice, if it wasn’t for you raising children he’d never be where he is, you need 70/80/90 % of assets to compensate you, plus spousal maintenance so you can work part time etc etc etc)

when it’s reversed it , he’s a lazy slob, sponging off you, 50 50 is fair, in fact actually he should get less because he didn’t contribute.

anyway, in this case he’s very likely to walk away with more than 50% as a sahm would too, definitely not 100% but op needs to negotiate because he is in a strong position and she would end up with less than 50% in all likelihood. But equally, her ex needs to accept he needs to find a full time job and will have to start supporing himself. The added challenge here is at his age he’s going to find it hard, and a mortgage company might only lend till 65 or so.

Also I have a friend who is a high earner (£250k+) and her husband is not (£40k max).

They have no children.

She has been advised that he would be entitled to more than half the equity, and possibly spousal maintenance.

It’s not just about how old the children are. I realise it’s different with HNW but not completely.

Half the equity half of combined pensions and he will have to get a job and you will have to do some of the childcare

Mortgage-wise, my friend just got her first ever mortgage at 56, it runs till she’s 70 and she’s self-employed in a precarious industry, so he’s plenty young enough still to get it sorted rather than writing off his chances for a career and mortgage if he doesn’t get the full whack now, which feels unlikely.

Why did he stay at home for 10 years? Surely that’s unusual?

It makes sense to keep legal costs low by coming to an amicable arrangement but I don’t think it is fair for him to get £250k and you £50k. He really should have gone back to work earlier if your kids are 14 and 9. The starting point is 50/50 but I would think that if he was the SAHP then he should get the bigger share but not as much as £250k. If he takes £200k that means he needs a mortgage of £100k so income £25-£30k per annum a not unreasonable amount for him to earn. You would need a mortgage of £200k but given you are a higher earner that should be ok. That gives you both a house worth around £300k. This is assuming the childcare will be split 50/50.

He needs a full time job.

His earning capacity has been severely diminished by taking 10 years out to be the SAHP. The split needs to address this and financially compensate him for his sacrifice and for enabling her to build her career with a SAHP allowing her to not have to deal with childcare disruptions

Of course he has to work but having sacrificed 10 years of his career building time needs to be accounted for so the split will likely ge 60:40 or 70:30 to him. And quite rightly.
and yes he will need to build up his career now. Although it’s going to be hard at 49 to get his earning potential anywhere near where it would have been had he not been a SAHP. And the OPs career may not have been so successful had she needed to share the workload of taking time off to parent

And I agree with you to an extent but they will expect him to work and he will not get the full equity either

OP is he the father of both you say 10 years but you eldest is 14

Of course he needs to work. AS I HAVE SAID. and of course he won’t get full equity. AS I HAVE SAID. But he will likely get 60-70%

But as I said there is a discrepancy in the dates he went on leave so their is a chance the OP also did parental leave the first time round

it will be a split that gets them both adequately housed and takes into account the pensions as well - there is certainly less movement on the 50/50 than there used to be and I suspect it will be 60/40 here overall

there was a recent post with a mother of a similar aged child (9) who was basically told she had to work full time as they could get themselves home - that is why he isn’t in the best position because ultimately he has to work

most women I know work once the youngest at school the fact he hadn’t for the last 5 years is on him

I would assume, as he has been a SAHD for 10 years, that they would either be doing 50/50 or he would have them the majority of the time, not her.

Why does he not work full time if the children are 14 and 9? He needs to get a full time job now and if you have paid for everything then his settlement should be much less. I would not be happy if I had been the main breadwinner and my partner had not worked full time yet I was losing out. I get it that he was a stay at home Dad but youngest DD is 9 and he could have gone back to work more permanently once she was at school.