Divorce - what's mine is still mine?

[Nanga]

I'm hatching an escape plan and need some rather basic advice....

When me and DH met, I had my own place, which I sold and put all the profits (£80k) into the flat we bought jointly. He came to the relationshipt with no capital (just £10k of credit card bills which we paid off when we mortgaged the house!)

Around the time we bought a bigger house, I was left a £40k inheritance, which I also put into the house purchase pot.

Since we bought the house we're now in, we got married and had two DCs.

Over the past five years, DH has earned more than me, and has contributed about £1k a month more than me into the joint account. However, like many women, I had a drop in earnings, as I went part time to fit in with child care arrangements.

I now want out.

The equity in our house currently stands at about 250k, although as I see it, the first 120k is by rights, mine. Right?? Or can he have claim on it?

If we split up, I'd have custody of the DCs, and I would be happy to split the remaining profit of the house-sale 50/50.

I know NOTHING about divorce. Am I on cloud cuckoo land? DOes the fact he's paid more into the mortgage over the past 5 years mean he's entitled to more of a share of the profits?

Any help much appreciated

I should imagine that it is most definitely NOT a case of "what's mine is mine, what's his is his". Remember (sorry if this sounds a bit patronising) marriage is a merging of resources. You pledge to share and all that other stuff said in the vows.
Sorry if this is bad news.

I don't really know much about this field either but I'm pretty sure that you don't automatically get to keep what you brought with you. Otherwise, for example, Ms Mills would have had no claim on Paul McCartney's millions.

And I believe that if a house is in joint names (joint tenancy) then the starting point is that it's owned 50/50 - regardless of contribution.

But, get some proper legal advice sharpish.

interesting feedback - i will definitely have to get advice here.

i know it's well documented about the wives taking the husbands to the cleaners, but the fact that it's usually the wives who have custody of the kids usually means the law works in their favour. Plus of course, women give up work whilst raising children - I can see why they'd have a right to stake an equal claim on the joint property in these circumstances.

My DH is fucking hopeless with money, has been all his life, whereas I've always planned and saved and invested. It would make me weep tears of blood if he walked out of this marraige with more than he started!

IME I think you will find that initial investment is now considered water under the bridge, it was some time ago. You may be entitled to a greater share of the equity now but that would reflect whether you are the primary caregiver and have to create the family home. You need excellent advice from an experienced solicitor. Good Luck.

Nanga I don't know what to say- on one hand I think it would be unfair for him to walk away with more than he started with, but on the other hand I can see the point of view that marriage is a merging of resources between a couple and therefore he should get more than he came with if it can be deemed that he contributed in non-financial ways.
Only a court can decide, but I have to say that it wouldn't be a case of, "take what you brought and nothing else" as it's a marriage which means a solemn oath of combining your resources.
(Please don't shoot the messenger!).

I think the starting point, given you've been married for a number of years and have children, is normally 50/50, though you may end up with more if you have custody of the children. Who brought what financially into the marriage, by this point, is pretty irrelevant. Only in cases where the marriage is very short or doesn't produce children do the parties end up back where they started. So sorry, I expect he'll end up with something around 40-50% of the assets of the marriage unless he voluntarily cedes more to you.

In England & Wales all the solely and jointly held assets (including pensions)minus any liabilities form the net value of the matrimonial "pot" to be shared. If the needs of both parties can be met there might be arguments to allot certain assets back to one party but it depends on the particular facts of a case.

There is no law that assets are split 50:50 mathematically, or at least it's an oversimplification of the law. There is a checklist of factors in s25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and in the majority of cases "needs" comes at the top, or very near the top, of the list.

The first thing to determine is the living arrangements for children. Children's needs are a priority and if they are to live primarily with you adequate accommodation will be required. The children will also spend time with the other parent so he would need somewhere suitable to live where they can visit/stay/live some of the time.

Then both parties will need to consider their mortgage raising capabilities - the lower earner won't be able to raise so much money and will require a larger share of capital to leave them on a similar footing.

My suggestion would be to consult a family solicitor committed to the organization Resolution's ideals of a non confrontation to find out where you stand and what your options are. Thereafter you can come to an agreement between yourselves or with the help of mediation or collaborative law (see Google) once the divorce has been applied for a solicitor can draft the agreement into a "consent" order which is legally binding and prevents either party from making claims against each other in the future.

thanks to all of you, but especially STIDW - do I owe you some kind of hourly rate for that incredibly useful advice?