What is a fair house split after divorce and years apart?

[CrumbocalypseNow]

Name changed but am a long time poster. I have sought legal advice but the advice was to try to speak to my ex husband as we are on good terms. However, because of the way he is I need to be very clear on what is fair and what is reasonable before putting any kind of idea to him as he's very rigid in his thinking on certain things and has zero empathy with no idea of what is actually reasonable. So wanted to ask the vast experience which makes up this board on what is fair and reasonable.

Have been divorced/separated 20 years and was married for 15 years with two small children now grown up although still supporting youngest at uni.

When we divorced, we made a verbal agreement in mediation that I would stay in the house but we'd split it 60/40 when I sold it when our children were grown up. I'd not have any claim on his pension but we cashed in an endowment and I got that which was about 10k which settled a credit card I had in my name but which had been used for driving lessons, a computer for freelance work, and house things.

I realised on speaking to him recently that he thinks the 60/40 split is based on the house value now and not what it was then. My understanding is that it was based on what it was when we split up as I was waiving my right to part of his pension. I had a valuation at the time and obviously it has gone up in value since then to the tune of around 100k. The mortgage is 120k and he will be in a position to pay off his half of the mortgage when it comes up for renewal next year. He works for a local authority and has a good pension. I had no pension as was a single Mum struggling for years doing freelance or part time work. I paid all house costs, insurance, mortage since 2006.

We get on well and he had to rent all that time while I got to live in the house with our chidren. I don't want to be unfair on him. The split was because he fell in love with his boss (didn't have an affair but would probably count as emotional affair) but mostly have realised he's quite autistic and really struggled with small children and just wanted to be out of the house. I grew to feel resentful and unsupported and when he admitted to being in love with his boss and wanting us all to be friends, I just said I'd had enough and wanted out. The lack of empathy for not only myself but for his children was tough in those early years.

Move to the current day and cost of living crisis and the fact the house needs repairs and I couldn't afford it on my salary alone and it's coming to the time of needing to sell, I needed a lodger and we actually get on well enough that I suggest he move back in, pays me rent rather than another landlord, and we do up the house together to sell it or even potentially just live separate lives in the house (I have no desire for another relationship). It means he gets to see his children when they're home and it works as well as it can do given the circumstances.

Obviously that muddies the water when we need to separate everything out. What on earth do I do? We get on well but I ultimately dream of my own little flat somewhere but don't know what to suggest in terms of splitting the house. It's not fair really if we do 50/50 based on what the house is worth now as I paid the mortgage alone for years (although he was paying rent elsewhere). I also would have been entitled at the time to some of his pension. I do have one now but not very old and I don't think I'll ever be able to retire. I had thought I might be able to downsize a bit and use some of the house equity for a pension.

Sorry that's long - just no idea where to start on what's fair. Obviously we should have had it written and signed at the time and it's my fault really that we didn't as I was just really struggling back then and struggling to stay on top of everything and I let things slip. Then it got too late and then I realised the misunderstanding. I'm happy to come to a new arrangement but want it to be fair to both of us.

280k in 2016, adjusted for CPI is £396.5k, if adjusted for RPI it’s £410k. Your house hasn’t appreciated in value, in fact it has lost value and is worth less than it was in 2016 when you adjust for inflation. I’d say he could very easily argue the value of his share in 2016, when adjusted for inflation is 40% of 400k. Given you are talking about a share that is worth less now than it would have been if you’d sold in 2016, then the 60/40 split is fair and reasonable. If you’d wanted it to be based on a £ amount, that should have been what you actually agreed to back then.

You say you'd be happy to live together as friends? Do that then. Better for your kids as you say, and avoids all this hassle, plus there might be time when one of you is ill and you can support the other.
Obviously it would be different if he was a violent person, but you actually say you'd be happy to live together.

OP sorry you’re in this situation. He’s retired now but still occasionally comments , google (if in UK) David Terry Divorce Forum.

You may have paid the mortgage all these years, but did you also pay your ex rent for his share? Guessing not.

We divorced in 2006 and I've only been rough in the actual equity figures (value minus mortgage - it's going to be less than this as haven't accounted for stamp duty, solicitors fees, Estate Agent fees etc) but just gives an idea of the differences in value. We bought it for somewhere around 200k in the early 2000s and it went up quite quickly and then went up to the highest I think late 2024/early 2025 around 500k and has been dropping since.

Op you don’t have to go to court at all

if you can agree you fill
out a form a, a d81 and can draft your own consent order. Sit down and do them
jointly if you can. It sounds like you’re amicable.

I’d forget what was agreed 20 years ago. It’s now irrelevant. Work out what there is, and discuss how to split it.

a judge can ask questions of reject if it is wildly imbalanced but if you can both answer those and show you’re happy it will likely go through. But you need some share of pension and he needs equity based on today’s value - it could be he agrees to trade equity for lower pension share

Hi OP,
if you didn’t get a Consent Order as part of the divorce, you haven’t given up rights to his pension or formally agreed anything about a split on the house either.
You need mediation to agree this properly and for both of you to see what’s fair legally.
the judge needs to sign off on any split of finances, and may not agree even if you both do.
It will all be based on today’s figures but you can add narrative as to why you are suggesting a specific split, e.g. because you solely paid mortgage etc.
Your pensions are both very much still in the sharing pot with everything else, meaning they get shared or offset by a different house equity split etc.
Amicable are good, costs £3.5K between you but this is worth it based on how much you stand to lose otherwise.

You don’t have to have mediation either. Myself and my ex did not.
snd we did all the paperwork ourselves jointly.

it could be worth you both separateness seeing a solicitor, comparing notes and using just as a guide

don’t ruin your relationship over this but that doesn’t mean accepting less ( for both of you )

I think it should be 60 40 split from now. And tbh I think that's what you agreed in the first place but then think you gave yourself a bad deal.

You paid the mortgage but he paid rent. You gave up access to his pension to have secure housing for 20 years. I don't think that's unfair.

I don’t know why you do not bring up his pension pot as part of the discussion - ask him if he remembers you did not ask for part of it and why
go back to the financial figures when you separated and work out what was fair then

@millymollymoomoo It’s a better route to have mediation because they cannot agree! Plus the draft order should be fair and that’s what mediation will assist with. It’s a better idea for the Op who doesn’t even think she needs a court order! They need professional assistance.

A lot of people have mentioned that you had the benefit of living in the house for the last 20 years. But it was also housing his kids, which was his responsibility too, as he didn’t want them living with him.

He had them 2 days a month, and paid a pittance in child support. Your family provided the free childcare.

This should be counted as housing the children, not as a benefit to you.

It certainly would be best to keep this amicable, but the compromise has to come from both sides, not just you.

My immediate reaction is that you cannot use the value from 20 years ago, as that is completely unfair. You were able to remain in the house and that’s the only solution that was available at the time.

However this pension thing has me thinking that, can you really come after someone’s pension after being divorced 20 years? I thought once the divorce went through then it was final.

was there nothing at all written up at the time regarding finances ?

I'm out. You are confusing too many legal things and just not understanding that you need a courts approval of your asset split for it to be legally binding.

You can agree all you want but in the end it still needs a judge to sign it off. You are just muddying the waters even more.

So it's 60% of 280k plus 100% of 100k = 338k (obviously I'd need to buy a flat with this so a small retirement flat plus a bit for my pension)
or 60% of 380k = 228k

60% of 280k is 168k, plus 100% of 100k = 268k

It is only a 40k difference you are talking about.

@LittleGreenDragons It is difficult as the op won’t read about the legal position and other posters say diy is ok. There’s not much point in continuing in the face of such poor advice and a poorly informed and rather deluded op.

This is the problem. Unless you have a clearly detailed legal statement then a spouse can come after you years later. I recall my solicitor saying this.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner im not saying it might not be beneficial. I’m stating op doesn’t HAVE to have mediation, they also do t HAVE to use solicitors or go to court.

as they are amicable they SHOULD be able to diy it.

but that of course means perhaps they both need to compromise. If they cannot do so to reach agreement then a more formal route Might be necessary

The pensions up to when they split would be a matrimonial asset. After that it would probably be non-mat asset but the court can still invade those if there is a need for a fair settlement. equalising retirement income is much more in judges minds now than it was 20 years ago. But after 20 years or especially once op was working and contributing to own pension it’s likely he would keep that. My post separation pension wasn’t touched although ex tried to get it included - he had his own pension but earned less and contributed less - largely his choice as I had main care dc
My guess if he is a modest earner is the difference between their 60:40 no pension but £10k endowment to OP original agreement - and a 50:50 with his pension included - may have roughly the same outcome. OP can ask him to provide the breakdown from his online pension account which is the missing info.

@millymollymoomoo Well they have differing views and it’s clearly not straightforward. Often getting someone to talk you through the options is better as it can lead to a quicker resolution. I always think assistance when people are not agreeing but seek fairness is the best way. I don’t see the solicitor as necessary but talking to a mediator is beneficial.

There are cases where courts won’t entertain huge changes from an original agreement on finance but here, recollections differ. Plus I assume no vast sums have been accumulated. However each party needs to move on financially and not live in a house partly owned by the ex. What they should do to even up the finances does need discussion with a person who has professional experience.

this is an eye opener.

Was his pension back then equivalent to 10% of the house value? If so then you could suggest either you take value of the house from then as well OR you take current valuations but revisit the pension split as well when determining what is fair. You could also factor in mortgage payments/rent payments that way as well.

@3luckystars If a financial order is not signed off by the court, it’s not legally binding. If someone makes many millions and the ex is living in poverty with dc, then there can be a claim on the big earner.

I would have thought the 60/40 split in your favour was based on current value when sold and that the extra 20% was to compensate for the loss of pension.

It sounds like he hasn’t been in a position to buy with his equity being tied up and has been renting and as a result won’t have otherwise benefited from the rise in house prices.

that’s what I was thinking. In future years the house may go up in value again.

My nana did this with her 3rd husband but they were separated and owned a business together too and had 2 houses side by side. When she got to 70 she wanted to close the business and divorce and sell the properties but they lived as a separated couple for at least 20 years. Quite amicably. I have no idea why they didn’t divorce sooner, she did have a new partner who lived with her and he had a girlfriend (didn’t live with him). He wasn’t very good at looking after himself though, she (my nana) cooked for him.

If he is insisting on current valuation, then his pension and all other assets must go into the pot. He can’t have it both ways.