AIBU - and greedy AF

Charlie554 · 2025-08-28T20:37:40+00:00

Married 25 years. Separated for 5. Adult children. Ex wants finances sorted. I’m living in marital home worth 400k. Wants it sold and half each. When we separated he went and lived in a house he’d bought 5 years before we married. He sold that for 300k three years ago and moved into his parents house (left to his brother by FIL to ensure I would get none of his inheritance) AIBU to say that I’m owed money from the house he sold? Anyone else had anything similar?

PamIsAVolleyballChamp · 28/08/2025 21:45

He sold it before you married? Why would you be entitled to it?
Do you both work? Who is paying current mortgage?

Original poster

Charlie554 · 28/08/2025 21:51

he bought the house before we got married. He didn’t sell it when we got married and rented it out. When we separated he went and lived in it for a couple of years and then he sold it about 3 years ago. I work full time. There is no mortgage.

OP posts:

Octavia64 · 28/08/2025 21:53

Law on divorce varies from place to place.

in particular it is different in England and Scotland.

in general if it has been a long marriage and with children the starting point is providing for any children under 18.

once that is dealt with, and that means ideally both parties are housed, then the starting point is usually splitting all assets 50:50.

the family home is usually counted but so are pensions and other cash or investments.

Original poster

Charlie554 · 28/08/2025 21:59

I’m in England and both children over 18.

OP posts:

Octavia64 · 28/08/2025 22:01

Ok well no requirement to move away from 50:50 to deal with their needs then. They are basically disregarded and assumed independent.

so yes, 50:50 of all assets would be the starting point and there don’t seem to be any other factors to move significantly away from it.

pensions are usually the other big asset.

Summerhillsquare · 28/08/2025 22:01

You need legal advice, but 50/50 of ALL assets is the starting point, more if you sacrificed earning potential to bring up children.

FrippEnos · 28/08/2025 22:12

IANAL You may find that him selling the/his? house is not illegal but wrong.

You need to chase this up with a lawyer as you have a claim to the money from the sale of the property. If he has hidden the funds from the sale then he could be in even more trouble.

Original poster

Charlie554 · 28/08/2025 22:22

Thanks everyone. I will take legal advice but I was a bit blind sided by him wanting 50:50 and my pension whilst this money seems to be nowhere. His partner now has a house on the coast bought a few weeks after this other one was sold.

OP posts:

SummerCanDoOne · 28/08/2025 22:51

Just to say, while you're in the throes of getting this sorted out, don't be signing anything final in the divorce department.

You need legal advice and a watertight financial
orfer drawn up.

Your XH is a cheeky fucker.

Original poster

Charlie554 · 28/08/2025 23:04

SummerCanDoOne · 28/08/2025 22:51

Just to say, while you're in the throes of getting this sorted out, don't be signing anything final in the divorce department.

You need legal advice and a watertight financial
orfer drawn up.

Your XH is a cheeky fucker.

thank you. It very much feels that he thinks he is entitled to a share of the marital home irrespective of other assets he has had which I have not .

OP posts:

SummerCanDoOne · 28/08/2025 23:07

Charlie554 · 28/08/2025 23:04

thank you. It very much feels that he thinks he is entitled to a share of the marital home irrespective of other assets he has had which I have not .

Show quote history

My ex thought preventing me from going on the mortgage would mean he'd get to keep everything.

Unfortunately for him I was well aware of matrimonial homes rights and got 55%.

FrustratedOldLady · 29/08/2025 16:12

He’s a cheeky AH… there’ll be a paper trail for that house he sold. So your combined assets are £700k including that house sale plus any pensions… so you’d both get £350k plus 50% of any pensions as a starting point.
Don’t finalise your divorce without the finances being sorted….

Original poster

Charlie554 · 29/08/2025 16:56

FrustratedOldLady · 29/08/2025 16:12

He’s a cheeky AH… there’ll be a paper trail for that house he sold. So your combined assets are £700k including that house sale plus any pensions… so you’d both get £350k plus 50% of any pensions as a starting point.
Don’t finalise your divorce without the finances being sorted….

That’s what I’m starting to think! I think he is trying to hide that money and you’re right - there must be a paper trail - I think it leads to the other house in his girlfriend’s name. Could be wrong.

OP posts:

FrustratedOldLady · 29/08/2025 19:41

Charlie554 · 29/08/2025 16:56

That’s what I’m starting to think! I think he is trying to hide that money and you’re right - there must be a paper trail - I think it leads to the other house in his girlfriend’s name. Could be wrong.

Show quote history

Well, he’s daft if he’s done that. She might not give it back 😂

BigCity · 30/08/2025 20:50

Totally disagree with previous advice. He is entitled to some of the assets built up during the relationship. Why should he get zero because he had assets before.

The family house is a matrimonial asset, the other house is non matrimonial as he kept it separate. You don’t have an automatic right to it you have to show a need for that to be included - or alternatively argue the family house equity needs be split more in your favour. You can’t assume you will get more than 50% of what you built together. As you’ve been together for 25 years a judge may well be more flexible about whether the second property became in effect matrimonial over that length of time.

He’s right to have a starting point 50:50 matrimonial assets and you each keep any non matrimonial assets. That’s the legal position unless you can show it became matrimonial or you need more than £200k for housing. It’s on you to prove a case for more than £200k

Why should you get half of such a huge asset you never contributed to.

redastherose · 31/08/2025 00:21

BigCity · 30/08/2025 20:50

Totally disagree with previous advice. He is entitled to some of the assets built up during the relationship. Why should he get zero because he had assets before.

The family house is a matrimonial asset, the other house is non matrimonial as he kept it separate. You don’t have an automatic right to it you have to show a need for that to be included - or alternatively argue the family house equity needs be split more in your favour. You can’t assume you will get more than 50% of what you built together. As you’ve been together for 25 years a judge may well be more flexible about whether the second property became in effect matrimonial over that length of time.

He’s right to have a starting point 50:50 matrimonial assets and you each keep any non matrimonial assets. That’s the legal position unless you can show it became matrimonial or you need more than £200k for housing. It’s on you to prove a case for more than £200k

Why should you get half of such a huge asset you never contributed to.

This is rubbish. With a long marriage all assets will be added up, so pensions, property, investments etc regardless of whose name they are in are included. After a 25 year marriage the fact that the other house was bought beforehand is unlikely to make a difference. If either of the children are still dependent and reside with op (ie uni students) they can still figure in the calculations as well.

Original poster

Charlie554 · 02/09/2025 17:59

I did contribute significantly to this property in terms of labour, decorating/gardening/general DIY when it was rented out after we got married and bought the family home. I was also involved in the management of the rental agreements.

OP posts:

BigCity · 03/09/2025 18:22

It’s not rubbish
legally matrimonial and non matrimonial assets are treated differently. See https://osborneslaw.com/blog/matrimonial-non-matrimonial-assets/
Each party will no doubt put their best case that the asset should be included or excluded but it’s not a slam dunk as pp’s are suggesting.
There are no dependent children.
So OP has to show a needs case or a case that the asset became matrimonial over time so it’s included. She needs to argue this ideally with evidence. She can’t just assume a
right to it.
The ex isn’t doing anything wrong in putting forward his most favourable interpretation of the law. It’s what I would do in his shoes.

Matrimonial & Non-Matrimonial Assets Explained | Osbornes Law

Discover the key differences between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets in divorce and how they affect property division.

https://osborneslaw.com/blog/matrimonial-non-matrimonial-assets/

TheFormidableMrsC · 03/09/2025 19:05

All of the assets should be in the pot. You will need legal advice and a forensic accountant. The absolute cheeky fucking bastard. Stand your ground. He’s wilfully disposed of assets and now wants another chunk. Prick.

TheFormidableMrsC · 03/09/2025 19:09

BigCity · 30/08/2025 20:50

Totally disagree with previous advice. He is entitled to some of the assets built up during the relationship. Why should he get zero because he had assets before.

The family house is a matrimonial asset, the other house is non matrimonial as he kept it separate. You don’t have an automatic right to it you have to show a need for that to be included - or alternatively argue the family house equity needs be split more in your favour. You can’t assume you will get more than 50% of what you built together. As you’ve been together for 25 years a judge may well be more flexible about whether the second property became in effect matrimonial over that length of time.

He’s right to have a starting point 50:50 matrimonial assets and you each keep any non matrimonial assets. That’s the legal position unless you can show it became matrimonial or you need more than £200k for housing. It’s on you to prove a case for more than £200k

Why should you get half of such a huge asset you never contributed to.

Well that’s exactly what has just happened to my friend. A valuable property she owned pre marriage was included in the pot by the court alongside the matrimonial home. Her ex had nothing to do with it but he got half and this was a relationship of less than 10 years!

Original poster

Charlie554 · 03/09/2025 20:53

TheFormidableMrsC · 03/09/2025 19:09

Well that’s exactly what has just happened to my friend. A valuable property she owned pre marriage was included in the pot by the court alongside the matrimonial home. Her ex had nothing to do with it but he got half and this was a relationship of less than 10 years!

Show quote history

Thank you for that information - I really don’t think I M being unreasonable and contributed significantly to the upkeep of the other property. Going through old paperwork I can see we raised a little bit of a mortgage on his house to buy our first home together- not the one worth 400k and I paid the mortgage on that first home when we lived together and he was able to rent the property out from about 1990 because he was living with me. Still waiting for a solicitor to contact me!

OP posts:

millymollymoomoo · 04/09/2025 06:58

The point is there is no automatic division of it

you will argue it should be included and divided and that it’s always been considered a marital asset. The length of marriage is a long one to help this case.
your ex will argue it was his and you don’t have needs to it

On the balance of probability due to length of marriage it will be factored in, but there’s no automatic presumption to a right to 50% of it.

I don’t necessarily see your ex as a cheeky fecker. It’s a negotiation and with that comes proposals and counter proposals. If I was him I’d be trying to maximise my outcome - just as you are