How does a 50/50 divorce settlement work with older children to house?

[Lonelysummer]

H and I separated earlier this year. His decision, if that's relevant.

We are just talking about the legal formalities ie split of marital assets. My understanding is that there's a broad 50/50 principle for fairness, then a consideration as to whether that meets both parties needs.

Obvs housing is the key one. I am currently living in our home with dd19 and ds17. Dh is lodging locally. If we split the housing equity in half, that will give DH enough money to buy outright or very nearly a very nice flat in our area (London) and me not enough to be able to house 3 of us anywhere in London. Even taking on as big a mortgage as I can get, buying a 3 bedroom would involve us moving away from where we are now. Ds is at school in London for another year, DD is going to university and will be back for holidays etc and probably when she graduates.

Dh decided to take his pension when he turned 60 earlier this year. I am working full time and intend to go so for as long as I can and still have a job. My job is in London and I don't fancy my chances trying to get another at my age.

Both offspring want to live with me at the moment. Ds may change his mind as he gets older, but who knows?

I am struggling to see how this is fair. Dh improves his already very chilled lifestyle, while I have to uproot the children and myself and possibly not keep my job.

I don't have any family. I am on my own and would really appreciate not losing everything I have built up here.

Can anyone explain how 50/50 works when there are adult/nearly adult children to be housed?

TIA

Absolutely agree with this

@WinterSunglasses Absolutely.

It should still be 50/50 but can imagine you would get more of the equity in the house if his pension is worth more than yours. Housing your adult children is a luxury and I can understand the courts not taking your preferences on this into account. The cases where I’ve known one parent keeping the house for this reason, it has had to be sold once the children reach 18 for the equity to then be split. If your adult children want to stay living with you past 18 then could they not contribute to the rent/mortgage, you would be able to still claim child maintenance for them if they are at college until 19/20

I see what you are saying, but I cannot agree that continuing to provide a roof over the head of an 18 year old is a luxury.

That's what happens in the vast, vast majority of families. As someone said earlier, children in the care system are forced to live independently once they're 18 although there are very few other 18 year olds these days who do.

University students aren't considered to be independent by the government for example. Any maintenance loan is based on household income and it's certainly not them earning it!

If we sell the house when the youngest is 18 and split the equity 50/50, I'll be entitled to half his pension, which he a. Doesn't want (neither do I) and would leave him with a vastly reduced monthly income, which he also doesn't want.

I got 75% of equity in exchange for not having a pension sharing order.

Depending on the figures you could ask for something similar? What does your solicitor say?

It doesn’t have to be 50:50 split of every individual thing it could be he keeps his pension and you get a larger equity of the house/ savings . So you both end up with the same but in different ways

Whereabouts roughly in London are you? You can buy a small 3 bed house in outer London zones like Sutton/Bromley/Bexley for £450k. Very easy to travel into Central. I’d be inclined to do that if you have the equity rather than take on a large mortgage.

Agree with everyone else that he’s trying to screw you over. Get a good lawyer.

There may be a chance his pension may cancel out most of his share of the equity in the house (if that’s how you both agree to split the assets) so you might not have to worry about that anyway. I understand ideally you do want to be able to provide your adult children with a home (my adult child still lives at home in 20s so has been able to save for a deposit once in a position income wise to buy a house) I’m really glad I’ve been able to provide that opportunity but it isn’t a given. We couldn’t afford to provide my other child with a penny towards her university costs. University students are not legally considered dependants and there is no legal obligation for parents to make up the shortfall in loan that has been assessed using their income and neither should there be!! It’s a ridiculous system as many parents are unable to anyway. The whole increasing participation at uni was just a system designed to drain parents of money and indebt students, half the jobs people have to pay to go to uni for now are ones people used to get paid for training for a few years ago!

If parents can provide something then great but they shouldn’t have to. The care system does provide some support after 18 and they will make sure that person leaves with a place to stay, I think the major issue is that the kids are not always very well prepared to be independent by the time they leave and also have a lot of background mental
health issues which they need support for.
I can see from your ex’s point of view, why should he not be left with enough to also buy a house just because you want to keep it for your adult children to live in? A line has to be drawn somewhere and personally I don’t think that is at all fair that your ex should go without to that extent just for you to keep everything ‘perfect’ for the adult DC . However I do agree assets should be split 50/50 at divorce so he has to take that hit as his pension is an asset.

I do have sympathy with you with it having been his decision to break up the marriage and think I would be feeling pretty angry in your shoes too about it and the fall out affecting your children as it probably will do

If you read my earlier posts, I absolutely agree that ex-H should receive enough assets to be able to house himself. Hence, my talking about taking on a large mortgage, using savings and liquidating some of my pension to buy him out. He will need to provide housing for one person and me for three people.

He will need equity from the house to fund a deposit. That goes without saying. The issue is whether I can keep enough equity to buy his share out if I forego any pension sharing order, or even 5% of his pension would make a big difference to my pension pot.

I don't want to keep everything 'perfect' for my adult children. But I will do everything I can to keep the stability of their home for the next few years. As someone who spent time in the care system as a child following my parent's marriage breaking down and spent the rest of my childhood being told that 'they might take the house', this matters a lot to me.

Zone 3, other side of London. Nearly all my friends are here, I have no family other than my children whose job is not to support me emotionally or in any other way. I am keeping things together at home and work, but only just about really.

I've sought initial advice from a lawyer, but am reluctant to actually instruct one tbh. Formal letters will ramp up his animosity. He is also very reluctant to spend any money on divorce/separation (yes, I do think he could have thought that through a bit before he ended our relationship but hey, ho).

The best thing you can do is get proper advice based on the facts of your divorce. You will need legal and financial advice. It is important to listen to the advice and to accept that there will be limits to what you can achieve.

You should also speak to your children and allow them as adults to make their own decisions with all the information.

At the end of the day if providing accommodation for your children in London is your number one priority you could rent using your share of the equity. I’m not recommending this but is an option. It would only be until they get their own place.

Young people in their early 20’s still move out of their parents home in London and they don’t need to be bankrolled by their parents.

They're not in their early 20s. They're 19 and 17.

His reluctance to not spend money on divorce is likely because he’s trying to screw you out of your share. I think you can’t afford not to hire a solicitor!

Yep I’ve seen this happen several times

the man waits till the kids are around 16 /17 knowing that by the time they get divorced they will be 18

so they won’t be taken into account for needing to be housed ( except that they will still need housing ) and no maintenance to be paid either

so often because the kids don’t need to be taken into account the wife often gets less than she would if the kids were younger

Exactly what I thought as I started reading this. We are living in very different economic times. Most of them are dependents long past 18. Men who decide (and indeed plan ahead) to leave when their kids get to that age, in order to minimise their financial ‘loss’ in divorce, are just total shitheads. But then I have an extremely high earning ex who buggered off overseas 3 years ago when my kids were very small and left us all in grinding poverty, so nothing surprises me.

It sounds like You both have enough assets to rent a property big enough for 3, indefinitely.
Buying is only a preferred option; if you rent then you can both get 3 bedrm places.
That said, 50:50 sounds weird at this age. Because even older kids don't want to ping pong, they want one base.

Else, One kid living with each of you would make sense.

I had a very good experience with my ex because he didn't want to waste money on lawyers. This meant we talked to each other. Our kids (not living independently) were 14 & 19 when we split, 16 & 21 when we got final order. He bought me out in the end & he got the kids as housemates.

My sister was in exactly this position, albeit worked full time not part time, but on a relativelytiny pay after years if SAHM. Sister didn't take my advice, but I accept she did what felt best for her. She ceded rights to his pension in order to keep the family home for the two adult kids (again, he left at age 17 and 19) and by time finances were sorted they were adult.

Both kids have sone difficulties, not diagnosed or likely to be, which meant least the eldest looked very unlikely to move out.

Sister is a few years later on. Neither child speaks to Dad who left Sister to cover all living costs for the three of them with no maintenance. His Instagram is full of exciting holidays and girlfriends. Despite my username, I would be quite unmoved to hear he had dropped dead.

It would be ideal if you can both sort it out in a way that works best for all of you including the adult children and hopefully that can be done. However they are adults and have their own way to make in the world and many more years to build up security than you and ex have so it shouldn’t be the priority over what is most fair for you 2 as individuals. It may be that it’s more advantageous to him to have his 50% share of the housing equity and you have a share of the pension as otherwise he would be paying huge rates of interest on a mortgage and then also taxed on the pension

An absolutely ridiculous idea to extend parental responsibility beyond 18 and even more unfair to apply it retrospectively. I don’t mind my adult DC living with us but wouldn’t want the responsibility for an adult DC who was a nightmare a day past 18, I would of seriously reconsidered having children if that was the case. How long are we going to keep infantilising young adults for? I’m a mother myself and all for fairness but there do seem to be a lot of women on here that seem to think their ex should be financially drained for most of the rest of their lives for ‘the sake of the children’ I do wonder if it were them losing the house and paying maintenance if their ex’s had custody they would be so quick to sacrifice as much

Thank you for your considered and respectfully stated opinion.

I was the mother left with nothing and had to start from scratch (not married - lived sns learned!) and had an ex who bitterly resented paying even the CMS rate so my lived experience is actually of the mother but have seen the other side among family and friends too

I think its a bit ridiculous to put yourself through this level of stress because you dont want your adult children to have to move away from where they grew up. Thats life. You grow up, you move out and make a life for yourself, whether at 18 or 25

Nonsense. One parent could use such a rule to get more of the assets and then immediately kick the adult child out…

I got 63/37 long period as a SAHM then pt for the kids while ex career excelled.

Kids both lived with me post divorce.

But the student loan system is based on parents contributing to their adult children’s living costs.