What is a fair split of equity under these circumstances

[Anna713]

How would a judge split the equity in a house under these circumstances

A and B married 9 years. House in the name of A, and B contributed nothing to mortgage or household expenses

A works full time, has sole custody of 14 dd

B was working part time through most of marriage, full-time for the last 12 months before split. Was either sacked or quit job upon divorce. Has not contributed anything to costs of child. Child has no overnights with B and very limited supervised access

A has offered 50/50 split but B refused so it's now going to court. Both parties are 40+ and have similar pensions although B is no longer contributing to a pension.

What is B’s reasoning for wanting more than 50%? Especially to a mortgage they did not contribute to. Who paid the deposit?

have you spoken to a solicitor?

I honestly don’t see B getting more than 50…

I didn't contribute anything to paying the house etc as I was a SAHM for 22 years. I still got more than 50% of the house and 75% of his pension. It's not always cut and dried.

For those that feel crap about themselves so will attack me for not working, dh didn't want me to, I had other responsibilities and he earned enough.

B didn’t go part time to care for the child then? I suspect 50/50 was more than generous given all of that. The expectation will be that B gets arse back to work. A needs to house the child given the custody situation so will likely need more. Why is access supervised? Are they working towards B having child overnight?

Thanks for the responses. There is little chance B will have any overnight access for the foreseeable future due to drug and alcohol missuse. The child doesn't want more contact with her mother . B did put a larger deposit down initially although she has contributed nothing since.

That’s sad. Ok well then I would take the deposits out and then split what’s left 50:50 if that avoids court. It’s more than fair.

Starting point is 50/50 regardless of who paid what in the marriage. Then it goes on need, to ensure both parties and any children are housed

That's what I'm hoping Ineedanotherholidaynow. There won't be much to split anyway

If the house is in both names the split will start at 50/50. If A wants to claim back what they paid to the mortgage then 50% of this can be weighted onto their side but this often opens up a can of worms & you might find B suddenly wanting full custody to stay in the house with the kids because they're not working. Unless you have proof of their drug use / unsuitability the courts may even agree with them.

The best thing A can do is just quietly split it 50/50.

B will not get custody. There is a court arrangement order and proof of drug use and unsuitability. She is not allowed any overnights with the child. The house is in As sole name but I don't think that makes much difference as they were married. A has offered 50/50 but B refused. She thinks she should get more because of the deposit she paid.

50/50 is fair. If B refuses to go to work that is on them.

I think 50% is the highest b would get imo depending on the values at play.

Thanks. A would obviously like more than 50% because he is solely responsible for his child but he would be happy to settle for 50%. It's going to have to go to court though because B is convinced she will get more. I was asking the question because although I think 50/50 is more than fair, I was wondering how other people would see it.

You have missed out…

1. who did the childcare and housework when your child needed it?

because from As pov this reads as ‘I was a sahp, worked part time when I could, lost my earning potential, and facilitated my dh to advance his career.’ And actually that doesn’t go 50/50 - equity is split more in favour of the sahp to account for the smaller potential income.

also, you are ranting in your op and diminishing your exes contribution in a way that will do you no favours. They DID contribute to the house via a deposit and (it sounds like though you missed it out) childcare.

unemotionally - they might get their deposit back first, then potentially 60/40 of the remaining equity, due to income disparity but they’d have to pay CM if they’re not having overnights.

*Bs pov

How big was the deposit and when was the house bought? How many years were they together prior to marriage?

From just one side of this post, one needs to think around to see the 2 possible potential extremes…

Extreme A - I did everything, all housework and all childcare, working a full time job also when my child was asleep. I also took care of my alcoholic partner and tried to get her help as I knew this wasn’t who she was and wanted to keep our family together.

Extreme B - I was in a controlling relationship, not allowed to work full time but took full care of our child and the house. Was driven to drink. I was forced to put all my money in to our house deposit and have nothing. Now that our child no longer needs childcare he has kicked me out. Panicking now.

Yes. Both hypothetical projections, but both plausible given the one sided op.

Both plausible
so is

A = lazy, unfit mother with an addiction problem who’s contributed nothing

Yes. Both the extremes and then everything in between. The opening post is written as if its A, but later on detailed she did actually pay more deposit than him initially, so that to me suggests that the opening post was only one side of the story.

I am neither A or B but I did want an unbiased pov. B was not kicked out but left of her own accord leaving her 12 year old daughter. B has never paid any child maintenance in the two years since the split. There are good reasons why A has full custody and the full support of social services, school etc. A is not proposing to leave B with nothing and has offered 50%. However as B did contribute a large deposit (A also contributed a much smaller amount) I was wondering what would be considered a fair split.

Why would anyone pay a deposit for a house that wasn't in their name or joint names. Makes no sense

Because they had a terrible credit rating and couldn't get a mortgage. The money was a gift

That is appalling.

how could anything be appalling if both parties are happy with it and it suits that particular family @MrsKeats?

and @Anna713- you still haven’t answered if your exwife did the childcare when your dd was young, or if you did it all whilst also working full time - as you claimed in your op that her contribution was nothing.

What is appalling?

I think taking 75% of someone else’s pension is shocking. Plus 50% equity.
Oh I am sure the ex husband was happy. Not.
Imagine if the sexes were reversed?