Splitting assets

[2LittleFishes]

We're getting divorced- so far amicable but money hasn't been discussed yet.

Our house deposit was 50/50 and since then we've always had wages paid into the one account as 'family money.'

H had 5k student loan we've effectively both paid, and I had 15k inheritance that went into the pot to help towards wedding/pay some off loan ect.

We have £20,000 equity in the house and 7k outstanding on the loan, car worth approx 3k.

I intend to stay in the family home with our two children. Due to effectively sharing money would I have to pay him 10k as his share of house, take on 3500 of the debt an whoever had the car pay the other 1/2 it's value?

Or

Can I work on the basis that ive paid 17500 more into our family money than him (15000 inheritance + half his student loan), therefore if he kept the car I'd have a 19k contribution. So effectively if he kept the 7k loan debt at his (it's in his name anyway) and signed his share if the house to me, then we'd be even?!

Does sharing finances mean I can't distinguish my contribution v his?!

I am not a solicitor but my brief understanding is

Unless you ringfenced (prior to divorce) any inheritance or investments as a legally binding document, then all the equity is considered 'joint'. The law takes into consideration the length of your relationship, and not just your marriage, as long as you have been married for more than one year. It makes not one jot of difference that you had separate finances or shared finances if no other legal document (e.g. a pre-nup, a ring-fencing agreement etc) exists.

The starting point for divorce is a 50/50 split of both assets and pensions. It gets more complicated when children are involved, and if there is a primary carer. In which case a 60/40 split, or a 70/30 split of assets is more typical - especially if the non primary carer has a substantial earning capacity compared to the primary carer.

The welfare needs of the children are considered paramount in a divorce first and foremost.

However, oftentimes the primary carer will off set most/all claims on the pension for greater ownership of the house. This is not always a sensible decision but born out of necessity.

However, it much depends on your/your husbands ability to meet the needs of your separate lives.

The best advice I can give you, if you wish to avoid solicitors, is to read 'Family Law' by Slater and Gordon.

www.amazon.co.uk/Family-Law-Made-Simple-Separation-ebook/dp/B00IUJZ89G/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1406252609&sr=8-11&keywords=family+law

It may not be feasible for you to say in the family home, given you have so little equity, and may not be given a mortgage by yourself. On the other hand, you may well be in a position to buy him out, and get a mortgage in your own name. Equally, he may relinquish some equity to reduce his maintanence payments. These are all areas to be disputed/negotiated.

My advice is to speak to a solicitor in person, who could outline your best/worse case scenario, and then you negotiate with your husband from there. Your husband may well want to secure a home for the children first and foremost. On the other hand, he may be one who wants little or nothing to do with them financially speaking.

Thus: Every divorce is unique so it's impossible to say 'this is what will happen'. However, the answer to your question is the starting point is a 50/50 split of the assets and liabilities (with exceptions) at the point of divorce. The rest is negotiable.

9/10 of the time, it comes down to what you agree between yourselves, without the involvement of solicitors. If you are 1/10 it is because you can afford the 5 - 20K of legal fees, and because you stand to gain more than the costs.

As wellwho has said after 1 year it makes no difference where the money came from in the first place unless you had really specific legal documents prepared and signed.
Yes it does largely come down to what you agree, but as my solicitor has been at pains at to point out to me financial consent orders are not rubber stamping exercises the judge will want to ensure that things are fair.

Even if you have pre signed agreements prior to marriage, although they may be looked at they can be over ruled by judges if the needs of both parties can not be met with what is left.

Get a solicitor.

In DH's divorce his ex got pretty much everything, despite it all being joint names, him technically paying in more, and paying the £20k deposit on the house from his own money. Her solicitors argument was he had somewhere to live (his parents), and a job, so it was "reasonable" to expect him to be able to start again. While she had two children to care for and needed the house, car etc. She'd already emptied the joint accounts so there was no savings left either.

This is even though she'd asked him to stay at his parents "temporarily", so he'd left with a couple of changes of clothes, and immediately moved the OM in.

Moral being unless you have enough money to sell your house, car etc and be able to buy another one each, you can argue for much more than 50% if you have children. So it's up to you and what you think is fair, and whether your H agrees. If he doesn't you'll need that solicitor.

Pretty sure though if you balanced everything out over the years you'd likely be fairly even…who earns more? Do you both pay the same into the family money each month?

So it's up to you and what you think is fair, and whether your H agrees. If he doesn't you'll need that solicitor.

Not necessarily. You can decide what you think is fair, send it to court for a judge to sign off and if it is too one sided then they can refuse to do so/ set a court date for it to be discussed with the judge.

Good advice above. These are not big sums so it would be not unreasonable that the person living with the children and staying in the home might get a bit more than the other person. However the ex husband probably (assuming he does not want to stay in the home with the children and no reason he should want to be the one forced to leave of course - many men stay and the wife leaves and supports the family these days) will need a deposit on his next house either to rent or buy so will want to come off any mortgage.

I think a clean break here whether neither spouse supports the other and some kind of fair division of the debts and equity can be negotiated. Remember to get this in a court sealed consent order before you go for decree absolute and make sure the mortgage is transferred into your name only and can be ( lenders do not always agree particularlyw ith the tough new mortgage criteria).

it certainly sounds simplest if he keeps his debt and leaves the house to the family and children if a mortgage lender will let the wife take the mortgage over. In my case I had to pay my ex £900k on a remortgage and he got more than half our joint assets as I earned a lot more so his entitlement was more than 50%.