How to split house sale proceeds

[TwistedSpout]

Will take legal advice but just asking for ideas/ experience.

Bought house in 2018. Child born 2020 and then 2021. Married 2022. Divorce finalised 2024.

Deposit - Partner 1 contributed 65%, Partner 2 contributed 35%.
Both partners have always paid into the mortgage, in line with their salary. P1 paid 40%, P2 paid 60%.

Now house is to be sold following divorce being finalised.

P1 has continued to live in house. P2 has bought property elsewhere. Childcare is 50/50 but changing to P1 being main carer and resident parent, 90/10 split.

How should the proceeds from the sale be split?

Each partner gets their original deposit back, then 50% of the value up to original sale price (whatever has been paid off the mortgage) and then any increase in value (eg if house sells for more than purchase price) is split 65/35 in line with deposit?

Should the rest of the proceeds be split 65/35 as in the deposit or 50/50 as both paid in equally, or a different split?

Does it make a difference that one partner will now be housing the children much more often?

Were financials not agreed when you divorced? All assets should be in the pot and a starting point of 50/50 inc savings, both houses and pensions? Over five years inc living together is not a short marriage. You need a solicitor.

Will definitely be speaking to a solicitor. Financials are not yet sorted, going to be done when house is sold.

2nd house has been bought with a new partner so is not in consideration for the financial settlement.

I think you will find that's not legally correct

This is impossible to answer. All financials need to be taken into account. So pensions, cars etc.

Money from house sale needs to be held in trust by the solicitor acting on the house sale until financials are resolved.

Resolving of financials should take into account the housing of children

Oh dear. Was this you or him?

It absolutely can be included in the financial settlement in that it shows that person's housing needs have already been met so the other party may receive a larger share of the assets

Well it’s a short marriage so logically the answer is Rachael deposit then split the rest 50:50

However the fact there is now a child could change that depending on cao and their need to housing and whether party need need more equity to do so, other assets including the other property need declaring and an overall assessment made, inc pensions

you should agree before selling house
you should have agreed before finalising divorce
Partner 2 silly to buy another property with done else !!

but if you can agree between you will save thousands in legal fees
how much equity is there ??

I would also sort the financials BEFORE selling the house

Not legally but for the preservation of the co-parenting relationship it won't be split, though I agree it might impact the joint house split in terms of the main carer needing to be housed and P2 already being sorted.

Thank you, this is very helpful. I meant that it wouldn't be sold and financially split. I agree it should impact the total financial split in favour of the main carer.

Thank you, will try and do this!

I am neither partner - a relative is unsure what is fair. All pensions and other assets will be taken into consideration too. Want to ensure the children are provided for fairly whilst preserving co-parenting relationship - the 2nd house is their home too.

So in a court situation a judge would be determining need. So arguable the person that has already purchased a house doesn’t actually need anywhere to live and therefore the person in the current house could get it all. It was very very very stupid of the person to joint buy another property with someone else before this was sorted out!

Person 1 v unlikely to get it all even though partner b has purchased another property

it does mean they can’t argue they need to retain the fmh and it goes show they’re housed - but they also deserve their fair share of any assets they built up m. It’s not that long a relationship including marriage though and I imagine both parties are relatively young so pensions probably less important and it can’t be argued that either has had long period out of work or sacrificed career etc