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

I think you explain if he isn’t will to financially support you housing the DC then each of you will have to house one each and he can inform them of this and discuss with him how the can decide who lives with who.

He’s being a self centred dick.

Op is absolutely right to want to provide stability and a home for her ( barely ) adult children. I did /do too and there is no way I could say to my 18 year old, bye you’re on your own now youre an adult

op with knowing the value of pension we simply don’t know if what you’re suggesting is fair or not ( to either of you )

in general I would say

dont mortgage yourself to the hilt to stay in the fmh. You need money to live and enjoy yourself too.
downsize if you can ( could be from a 4 bed to 3, or a larger 3 bed to a smaller 3 bed, or moving a few miles down the road even sometimes )
don’t sell yourself short on pensions

it’s absolutely possible negotiate between you an unequal split of individual assets while still achieving an overall 50/50 outcome. And while people are quick to jump
to get a shl that is combative and expensive- I’d be trying to agree between you as much as possible and only using lawyers as a last resort. But getting a PODE and a true valuation will be key

Can’t agree more, I really hope
the OP and her ex can sort something out that is fair keeps everyone happy. I also have a lot of sympathy for the fact she’s had her life blown out the water not of her doing or choice in any way. The fact that this is now potentially affecting her children even more than it must already be must like an especially cruel kick in the teeth. However legally the same applies to as if she had been the one to decide she fancied a change in life and walked out. I do think there is a very good basis to the laws as they are. Even if the children were 2 and 5 it wouldn’t be much different, most have to sell up and start afresh, I did with none of the equity my ex had. 18 year old’s are adults and much as I think there should be some leeway and support as will inevitability be needed as they establish themselves as adults, e.g a £10 loan when they’re messed up on their budgeting, maybe even moving back home for a few weeks and sleeping on the sofa if they’ve messed things up even more. However I really don’t think we do any favours by treating them as children for so long. No wonder so many turn out anxious and depressed these days when families and society are constantly reinforcing the idea that they’re not ready to grow up. My adult children were shopping and cooking for themselves, doing there own laundry etc a good couple of years before they moved out at 18 and the one who still lives at home is an absolute dream, looks after himself, helps us out and pays a contribution towards bills ans has saved a significant deposit for a house

It’s not about reinforcing infantilism- for most people moving out at 18 and earning enough to pay rent and bills is simply not possible ! Even more so in London and south

my two earn ok but no way would they be able to afford to live independently

It’s not possible for most people to afford to live in London, neither parent should be expected to fund this. My children seem to manage where we are, the full time minimum wage will cover the rent on a small apartment but more the issue that they are becoming harder to find. My adult DC who still lives at home could go for shared ownership but buying freehold would obviously be better but if in same situation would have to get own place

This is what happened with me, won't know of course if it helps you, but hoping it does.

When I filed the kids were all over 18. Two at uni, one about to go and the younger one stayed with me. Ex h moved to live with mummy. I stayed in the marital home until I bought somewhere new.

The house was split 55/45% in my favour, I got 75% of one of his pensions and he had to give me a large lump sum as I had no real money. He'd fraudulently bought shares in my name, and continued to trade after we split until my solicitor found out and made me change all passwords immediately, so I had those as well. I also got the kids. I'm sure he also hid money as well as lost it but couldn't be bothered trying to prove it. He tried to say I'd taken all the kids savings. Obviously what I had taken amounted to zero.

He got 45% of the sale of the home, 125% of two pensions and more share options.

I went for guaranteed cash rather than potential which explains the pension split.

Kids come home to me a lot, he rarely sees them. Bought a high six figure new house with the new girlfriend and gives the kids very little.

Min wage ( or much higher) won’t even get you shared rental where I live . And people don’t manage - they live at home !

I lived in London at that age but moved out and was able to afford a place, yes of course I had friends and family there, I made new friends and was still able to travel to see friends and family. In my area it’s about £850
a month for a 2 bedroom flat and minimum wage is £1880 a month after deductions so quite doable

Im not saying dont live at home - its lovely OP wants to provide them with a stable home beyond 18.
Im saying its crazy to twist yourself in knots to hold on to "the original family home" on the basis that "their childhood friends live down the street".
Divorces happen. Life changes.

It’s not in any way legally obligatory though, it’s just means the student isn’t eligible for the full maintenance loan. It was based on the very misguided assumption that middle class parents tended to sub their children, in reality many students have to make up the short fall themselves. However a glitch in the system that does have legal standing is that parents without residence are liable for CMS payments for their children in non advanced education until they are 19

They live at home as it’s just what is easier, like my adult DC and while we’re fortunate enough to accommodate and they are saving for a deposit I don’t mind. A room in a flat share in London is about £995 a month, min wage is £1880 take home

@Fireflicking we will have to agree to disagree . where I live a one bed flat is well over £1000 a month. Add on council tax, utilities, petrol, insurance etc etc they simply cannot do it. Min wage for an 18 yo would give 1560 a month take home based on 37.5 hours

And regardless, there’s probably enough assets to provide them a home with op. There’s no reason in theory she can’t take more equity and forgo some pension once it’s been correctly valued.

if op and ex were still together there’s no way either of them would be kicking their kids out at 18.

i do agree there could be alternative properties not necessarily the fmh however

Untrue. They’re considered children until 21 if still in education. Get a solicitor op don’t listen to people on here talking rubbish.

You absolutely need a solicitor. In fact, no judge/ court will sign off a financial order with asset splits if you haven’t got one. Plus, you’ll need one to instruct an actuary for the pension. Also, a good solicitor is not about ‘sending formal letters’ they focus on working with you as to what you are entitled to and negotiation with the other parties’ solicitor. A good solicitor should never drive animosity or raise the stakes in an unhelpful manner. Look for one that clearly states they adhere to this.

He doesn’t want you to get one because he doesn’t want you to know what you’re entitled to.

That’s not true. Consent orders are signed off all the time without solicitors being involved. If they’re wildly imbalanced to favour one party a judge may question it to make sure you’re not under duress. But you dont have to have a solicitor at all

With the op’s case, housing and pension equity and it not being clear cut a judge will want to see she’s had solicitor advice.

Regardless though, she’d be stupid not to. Asking Mumsnet to sort out potentially the biggest financial decision of your life is insane

It may be in ops interest sure

it you’re still not correct about op needing one to get it signed off

I was told by my solicitor that once a child turns 18, the court disregards them, regardless of whether or not they are still in full time education etc. DS was 17 at the time & it made me pull my finger out in terms of getting the divorce moving (he was my son, not ex DP’s). DS is NT with no disabilities so I don’t know if it’s different if the child/young adult has additional needs etc.

The only way you will get a fair deal is to instruct a lawyer, your husband is already trying to acrew you over and will continue to do so unless you get legal people involved

I'm in a similar position, have a look at the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973,
The resident parent (you) have to meet your own needs and the needs of any dependents-your 17 year old is still a minor child and any settlement has to ensure their needs are met until they are 18 (i.e. still at school) and for longer if they remain in education.
If your 19 year old continues in education and/or has any special needs, they will also be factored in.
Courts will not just assume that the second a child hits 18 they fend for themself.
www.roselegal.co.uk/when-18-is-not-the-end-dependent-adult-children-in-financial-remedy-proceedings/
You need your own solicitor, and you need to listen to their advice. re appointing a PODE and full and frank financial disclosure.

There hopefully is enough assets to keep the family home without disadvantaging either party, if I was in that situation it what I would want for my children too. I don’t think an 18 year old can expect to be able to live in an entire apartment in the pricier parts of the country, it would be a flat share/lodgings until they were earning more or got with a partner.
Yes of course when couples stay together and both work at maintaining a good relationship the outcome is usually much better for everyone, everyone usually loses out in a divorce

They’re not considered children until they’re 21, are you in the UK?

There is no precise formula for a judge to follow if the matter has to go to a final hearing to be resolved. Generally, the starting point is 50/50 but, as you have said, needs tend to take centre stage. Where children are involved, unless they do not stay with one party overnight and this is unlikely to change in the future, the court will find that the parties' needs for housing is the same. Obviously, if there is insufficient money to achieve this, then the party who the children spend more time with will have a greater need for housing.

Whilst the legislation states that the first consideration must be for the children of the family who have not yet reached 18, that does not mean that the welfare of young adults will be completely ignored. The court has to consider all the relevant circumstances, and the plight of young adults being unable to afford accommodation of their own, particularly in expensive areas, is increasingly being seen by some judges as an important consideration. They are acknowledging the fact that a young adult, still in education or in a low paid job is unlikely to be able to house and feed themselves.

On the other hand, if you are a fair bit younger than your husband (I'm sorry, I haven't read all of the thread), you will have longer to save for your retirement, pay for a mortgage etc. Everything has to be considered in order for a fair outcome to be achieved.

You husband is not going to keep all of his pension (if it's much bigger than yours) and get 50% of the house, unless there are other valuable assets that will balance the equation. On the other hand, would it be fair for you to have a much bigger share of everything just because the children might be living with you for a few more years, when he is close to retirement?

I have seen all sorts of deals being brokered and orders being made over the years, e.g. W gets more of the house & husband keeps more of the pension, lumps sums taken out of the pension to pay over to the other party etc. Sometimes, a delay in selling the family home - although that is becoming much rarer.

At the end of the day, the best outcomes are when both parties reach their own decisions on what works best for themselves and the children. Most men will not want their children put out onto the street, although there are, unfortunately, some who put their own needs centre stage. I suppose the big question is - what type of man is your husband?

Friend had similar situation. She negotiated 60/40 in her favour on the basis kids wanted to be with her and bought a doer upper which has since increased significantly in value whilst ex-husband broke even on his bachelor pad when he met and moved in with new partner

you need proper legal advice

he isnt your friend anymore - no matter how civil this divorce may be

you could deal on no pension and getting more/all equity in the house = whatever works

but being fair in a divorce is not the thing