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.

He doesn’t need a 3 bedroom house. He could manage with a two bedroomed flat if necessary. If he doesn’t want to work full time he needs to cut his cloth accordingly.

Yet another person getting divorced who seems to think they will both maintain their standards of living. You can only afford what your pot contains! You won't be able to both afford two three bedroom houses. Where does this idea come from? Divorce makes everyone poorer.

He should have gone back to work years ago. What kind of career trajectory can he realistically expect now at his age?

It's laughable that he wants a 50k mortgage at 49 when he has more than reasonable earning potential. Can I marry you and ask for that in the divorce? It's peanuts. This settlement will allow him to live a very comfortable life until retirement, never have to work too hard / above minimum wage and have a growing asset. You haven't answered where the children will live, i.e. who will be the resident parent. I'd be fighting to have that OP or a 50/50 worst-case scenario. Who is clothing these kids / paying for their / activities / holidays / school trips, and general lifestyle? Who is going to pay the shortfall in Uni costs? Don't be a mug, OP - are you both putting in equal amounts, or will all that land on you? Make sure all this is covered in mediation and in writing in your financial settlement.

He has sacrificed his career and his financial safety to raise your children. The divorce settlement should reflect his lower earning power going forward. It also needs to compensate him for his smaller pension as the two of you didn’t equalize that already.

If you want to keep the children at the same school, then it isn’t about what is fair to each of you, it is about what is feasible for that plan. How do you both afford to live near the school? If you can’t both afford that, then the plan won’t work and maybe all of you will need to relocate.

I was a SAHM, 3 kids under 5, eldest with ASD. We split everything 50/50.

50/50 equity split and pension share is the norm unless DH is disabled. If he's disabled and can't work he'd probably be awarded more. You both need to go to work full time if kids are at school. You'll use breakfast clubs and after school care like others do. A judge won't accept one parent demanding all equity and refusing to work full time. You will have to pension share though.

Exactly. But this happens to women all the time. They both agree to one giving up their career in order to stay at home and enable the other, and are then left high and dry when the marriage breaks down.

I don’t know whether the OP has been happy with the situation up until now, but they both have to take responsibility for the decision they both made.

That’s not to say he shouldn’t be expected to work full time, but to acknowledge that he is starting from a weaker earning position than OP, because of a situation that benefitted her career.

50/50 is absolutely not the norm at all.

it completely depends on

money in the pot
ages
income potential
length of time one person being out of work environment

50:50 IS the norm for starting point but it is not the outcome in many many cases and unlikely to be here.

this thread highlights the typical double standards on mn to a tee

op as said, seek legal advice and mediation but expect that this will not be a 50:50 asset division most likely and negotiate !

He's downsized his career for the kids, why isn't yours more stable when you had the benefit of a stay at home parent? He'll be entitled to more than 50% but not everything.

That doesn't sound fair to you at all.
i hope the pensions were included in the 50-50 split, at least.

I went back to work after 10 years off and now (2 years later also late 40’s) earn more than I ever have (and significantly more than the OP). Just because some people don’t doesn’t mean it’s not possible. Very defeatist. This man is still only in his 40’s. OP’s husband needs to get off his backside - he should have at least a decade of work in him yet and should at the very least be able to pull in a full time minimum wage. Is he qualified to do anything at all OP.

But this happens to women all the time. They both agree to one giving up their career in order to stay at home and enable the other, and are then left high and dry when the marriage breaks down.

And usually, the Family Court (and the court of MN) tells women they need to find work on divorce.

It does, but it’s also acknowledged that earnings and career have been sacrificed, and a much greater share of equity is needed to compensate for that.

standard for SAHM so also for for SAHD

Usually family court will tell women they ( rightly ) need to work full time. But they also award more than 50% of assets to them and sometimes spousal while they do.

Indeed. This stay at home business can often work out very badly. One person shouldering the total financial burden. The other left high and dry if they split up.

Surely he doesn't need to be a SAHP now that your children are older. The 14 year old won't need taking to or picking up from school and can be home alone after school and in the holidays.

Absolutely this

Go online and do a mortgage borrowing assessment for him, factor in benefits & CMS. You will be paying a lot each month and he will get UC and the child benefit. Even if he earns £25k should be able to get min £100k

I imagine 70:30 split would be fair of all assets, no spousal

I would say it is.

I know that would be my view 🤷‍♀️