How far should he be expected to move?

[Noregrets78]

Trying to sort out finances - each case is different, so I won't even attempt to post every detail here. But I could do with advice on a specific subject.

XH won't accept the offer to buy him out of his share of the house, on the basis it's not enough to allow him to buy somewhere for cash in the town DD is at school.

He currently wouldn't be able to get a mortgage for various reasons, although I do think he'd be able to get an unsecured loan for the difference, he refuses to try / take on debt.

He could afford to buy somewhere outright 5 miles away from our current location, but says it's too far.

There are various factors that I do appreciate / have come to terms with - we were home owners during our marriage and therefore I can't expect him to rent. I'm the higher wage earner and therefore have a responsibility to ensure he's OK at the end of this as well.

But... how can it be fair for him to come away with this with a house bought for cash, and me drowning in debt?

To my mind - him moving 5 miles away, and buying a house outright would be a really good solution.

We're now at the point where I'm about to apply to start court proceedings as we're getting nowhere, but I could really do with views as to whether my preferred outcome is unreasonable.

Thanks

Does dd live with you? Any other children? Does he maintain regular contact, pick up from school etc? Could you up your buy out offer a bit?

One DD, no other children. She's mainly resident with me, but spends 3 nights a week with him, so very regular contact. All those nights are week nights, so he also does drop off / pick up.

I have tried upping my offer a bit, but nothing is enough unless he can buy a house for cash. The last letter from his solicitor said that he wanted 100% of the equity in the house, impossible for me to raise that much.

I don't think 5 miles is unreasonable my Ex will be having to move that far and our situation. Is he sacrificing some other assets for 100% of the equity? As you say every situation is different and it is all balanced against other assets pensions etc.

If was prepared to sacrifice other assets to get this amount could you afford to give him this amount if you downsized? These are the kind of questions I would consider to avoid the cost of thrashing it out in court.

lonecat he's not really offering to sacrifice anything. He's coming from the point of view that I can get a mortgage so will be fine... therefore he needs everything in order to start again. As you say - every case is different but I really hope that's not regarded as fair.

I would like to downsize, but he is impossible to sell a house with, therefore need to buy him out first. He's also abusive and impossible to talk to, comes in and out of the house at will even though he no longer lives here. I really need to buy him out asap!

I have no desire to thrash it out in court, but if that's where we're going to end up, then I'd rather crack on and start the process. I don't think anything I offer will be enough. If I assume court will cost £5-10k, then it's still going to be worth doing.

Then I think you need to go to court for it to be really fair.

babybarrister finding legal costs a total nightmare. I've offered him £5k extra to try to avoid court, but no joy. I could offer him £10k extra but I still doubt he'd accept it. How much should I be trying to offer, in order to avoid the costs of court?! It really sticks in my throat as none of it is now fair, but it's a bit 'war of the roses' to pay it all to our solicitors instead of sharing it ourselves.

Is he being offered 50% of the equity?

random my offer is 50% of the equity... he's after 100%. Other assets only pensions (left alone, in his favour)

I don't know how you deal with someone completely irrational

I assume he hasn't been the stay at home parent for most of time since dd was born - because he could argue that has affected his earnings potential presumably???

random yes totally irrational imo. He's not been SAHD, but has spent about half the time at home due to unemployment. Lower earning potential, but not due to the marriage. The penny has now dropped with me - that puts him in a strong position. But does not mean he's entitled to every penny we have!

Nope it doesn't I'm sure.

Hmm if he's being abusive could you get one of those orders to stop him coming into the house?

Have you tried mediation?

What gives you a strong point is that you need to house dd as you are the primary carer.

Tried that too! It's called an occupation order, but apparently is thought of as draconian. My solicitor thought it would be 50/50 whether i'd be successful, as he's not been sufficiently physically abusive. He's currently living in temporary accommodation (his choice) which means he has a strong case not to be kept out of the house.

Yep to mediation too. He (predicatably) refused to take part at all.

I do need to house DD, although I'm conscious that he also has her 3 nights a week, and therefore needs somewhere adequate for her to stay. I'm a bit soft lols

Hi - I don't understand what his argument is as to his entitlement to more than 50%. My understanding is that 50% is the starting point and then the court would look at the needs of the parties. If 50% meets his housing needs then he should not expect more than that. He is expected to earn a living too - even if his earning capacity is low they would take it into account and look at what sort of mortgage he could get to meet his housing needs without your help.

probablyparanoid his argument is not always the way the court would see it I hope
From one of your posts on another thread it sounds as though we're in a similar situation. Basically I have a good job, he has been in and out of work for years - perfectly capable but only now we're divorced has he managed to (quite easily) get a job.
50% of the equity is enough, IMO, but only just. It would be a small place, and probably need work doing. But that's for him to buy it outright, with no mortgage. He argues he's not able to get a mortgage as his current job is not permanent. In order to live in our current town (rather than 5 miles away) he'd need more, hence his argument that he needs more.
We're bouncing backwards and forwards a bit with figures, and I'm waiting to get further advice from my solicitor on what kind of range of outcomes might come out of court, as that's where we're headed, I think.
Would be interesting to see what your outcome is - as I said it sounds as if we're in similar boats.

He is demanding that all of the risk is carried by the person who will be the primary carer for your DD, ie you.

• you get the mortgage to house you & DD

- he gets 100% secure housing.

This is not appropriate, because the Matrimonial Causes Act says that child's welfare is the court's first concern, which generally means the child's home.

what if you are made redundant? what if mortgage interest rates rise faster than your income?

He is trying to say that your mortgage payments in future are equivalent to capital now. That's wrong. The equity needs to be divided on a fair basis now. Not on the basis that if you continue to work hard and to house your DD, you will one day be able to catch up to the position that he will be in, while he does not have to make any more financial contributions.

From what you say, his 'reasonable housing needs' can be met by 50% of the equity if he is willing to travel. So you do need to be confident that he can afford the travelling instead. How will he manage mid-week contact?

iheartdusty thanks for your reply. Things have moved on to a certain extent - he has dropped his request from the original 100%, although only to about 75%. However - from chatting to my solicitor, the significant difference in our incomes means that if we go to court he would be very sensible to try for spousal maintenance. If I can pay him a suitable amount out of the equity instead, then at least it would be a proper clean break.
Oh this is so complicated, and there is no real way of knowing what the outcome in court would be (and it costs a fortune to find out!)

Good news that he has at least compromised a little.

Can you actually get a mortgage offer of enough to give him 75%, if not then that would be a good reason to negotiate a little harder. I do think a clean break and moving on with your life can be worth feeling a bit ripped off!

Just a little bit less and I can afford to do it. I do worry about the future, and whether it will be stretching myself too far. But equally so - I might be worse off if I go to court. Going to sleep on it, and mull over a bit.

Well you can tell him the max you can afford is x (truthfully) and if he wants more then he'll have to wait until you sell and then you may have to move further away anyway to a cheaper area!!!

random that's what I'm going to try... Slightly depressing that I've been pulling in favours all over the place to confirm what really is the maximum I can afford, and he may not accept it anyway. In his view if he can't afford a house for cash, he won't settle. Not surprising to me any more - I've been with him for a long time!

Hi again - I think that we are in a very similar boat and I would be interested to see how you are getting on and what advice have you had.

Have you been advised that he could get more than 50% of the liquid asset and more than 50% of the overall pension assets ? If not then if the pensions are in his favour can you not use that as a bargaining tool? So you claim more of his pension if you are giving more than 50% of the liquid assets?

I am so completely confused about the law - I though 50:50 was the norm but the primary carer would generally get a bit more of the capital . If he is capable of working and you are primary carer then why should you give him 75%?

My situation is that ex is unemployed and has been for a couple of years - I think that he is not trying to change that because it puts him in a better position all around. I have had the depressing advice that he could get more of the capital assets and make a maintenance claim against me. Honestly I earn v well but I cannot see how it would be fair to expect me to deal with a massive mortgage (because I can amazingly get it even though I can't afford it ) and pay for the kids and pay for everything the kids do now - while also maintaining him while he gets to be mortgage free in a house that is ok for his needs - that will be the result it seems to me . It really sickens me. I also by the way do everything - I am the primary carer and the only earner. I don't know how much of the advice that I get is solicitors being basically averse to risk and wanting to give you the worse case scenario. When I describe the situation to anybody they cannot believe the injustice of the advice that I have received. But they are my friends so obviously and what do they know?

I am in the situation where he won't actually tell me what he is prepared to settle for. He has been prevaricating for over a year now - he never gives a straight answer - or goes back on what was agreed before - and I don't know whether to go to court or not. Am going to post another question on it in legal.

I do hope things are looking up for you.

From your situation - have you been advised how much maintenance he is likely to get and for how long - and on what grounds? Would he really claim that?

probablyparanoid I'll send you a pm if that's OK, so I can give you more specific information about my case.