Divorce Buyout - Ex Husband unreasonable?

[Ukuleila]

Hello,

I am currently going through a Court Case for financial separation due to divorce. My ex just left the marriage end of 2018 from one day to the other leaving the country as well, leaving me completely on my own with our 7 year old son in London, hardly paying any child maintenance (a lousy £152 per month which is not even a third of the costs I incur for my son) and stopping all his financial responsibilities towards the flat.

When he left, I was on fairly low income and struggling with everything, financially, emotionally and caring for my son.

We have a 50/50 share in common property and because I worked extremely hard during the last two years I managed to get a much better paid job and I am earning now double of his current income, because he let himself go, lost his well paid job and is now working on low pay.

Now that I earn more than him - he wants it all, making demands like £35k more than the current value of his share... he is arguing that back then his father lent us the money for the deposit and he paid back in monthly installments , completely ignoring the fact that 25K of my inheritance went into the furniture, flat repairs, children, support of him when he was without a job during the last months of our marriage.... that I worked part-time and backed down on my career development to look after our son etc.

In my opinion we are quits, and I can just about to afford to remortgage for the value of the flat, but not his greedy demands on top. He is basically more interested to cash in on the flat than making sure that my son can keep his home and has stability and continuity.

I will present my reasonings to the Court, but I am concerned that they will not decide in my favour. They made a sneaky remark at the last session aka now that I am earning more than my husband, I can be happy if they do not order me to pay spouse maintenance for him... which I find unbelievable, given all the struggle I had to go through and carrying all the burdon of bringing up a child alone now....

I just wonder if anyone has experience with this - I am hoping the judge will show some fairness and humanity and look at my son's best interest and not at my ex's best interest....

Who made that remark? Your ex? Just ignore it

You can show what you paid in and that the deposit paid back to his dad was down out of 'family income' when you were together. And that he hasn't paid towards the mortgage while he's been gone - he won't get an increase in equity if he's not been paying his half of the mortgage.

I assume you mean comments made by the judge at the final hearing? Are you waiting for a written judgement?

When you say last session was that a First Appointment or FDR? Who made the comment regarding spousal maintenance?

The comment was made by the judge at the last hearing, the final hearing will be in May. It was more like a mediation session and I am not sure how well this judge was informed about the case as he will not be the final judge. He said something like "with your current income I am sure you will be able to borrow the money for the buyout and I don't believe the final judge will order you spouse maintenance as this will affect your ability to pay the mortgage"... But I was in shock that they were even thinking of that! I mean, my ex works, he has chosen this new life himself, he is paying me the absolute minimum of child maintenance with UK standard, not based on my son's real needs etc

So that sounds like an FDR. They are like a mediation session. The judge gives an indication of what they think will happen at a final hearing. They can't be the judge at the next hearing as they have already given an indication on the matter - nothing to do with not having read the case.

The judge at the FDR will have in mind the same factors the judge at the final hearing would (s 25 Matrimonial Causes Act). All judges are different so I am not saying you'll get the decision indicated, but you might. That's something to bear in mind, particularly if you have some room to negotiate.

But I was in shock that they were even thinking of that

You shouldn't have been. You are the higher earner so of course the possibility that you should pay spousal maintenance would be considered. It is highly unlikely for the reasons the judge said but the courts would be remiss if they didn't consider it.

I have no idea if it will help at all, but do you have proof (an offer letter from your current job) to show that you got this better paid job after he left because of the bills etc that he left you with? Also proves that he could have done the same to better himself.

Who knows if your ex is being unreasonable, there isn’t enough information in the post to determine that. That’s what the judges and courts are for.

Based on your comments, it does seem the judge at the FDR thought you were unrealistic in your expectations of what will be agreed and why it will be agreed. In other words your contentions are fairly superfluous and irrelevant to the petitions.

The CMS is a bit of a red herring. He’s paying it at the correct amount.

The outstanding issue is how your split assets to allow you both to secure new homes. Your current earnings are relevant. You earn more than him so can afford a bigger mortgage with a smaller deposit. He can argue successfully for a bigger share of assets. Basically his needs may be greater than yours.

If he is able to demonstrate that there is a debt owed to his father from the property then this will need to be repaid before the equity can be assessed. Just like any other loan. It was never part of the marital pot.

That’s entirely different from how you spent an inheritance when you where together. Which on the face of it doesn’t sound relevant. It was used as part of the marital pot to support your family.

@Bumpinthenight

I have no idea if it will help at all, but do you have proof (an offer letter from your current job) to show that you got this better paid job after he left because of the bills etc that he left you with? Also proves that he could have done the same to better himself.

The court doesn't care about why the OP got a better paid job. The fact that she has done so does not prove that he could have done. However, the court is interested in earning capacity. If he could earn more but is choosing not to, that would go against him. However, if his low paid job is genuinely all he can get in the current climate, that is what will be used.

The judge will show fairness and humanity. However, given that many of the things the OP thinks matter are irrelevant as far as the courts are concerned, I suspect the OP will think the outcome is unfair.

OP the judge was literally giving an indication that you would be unlikely to be ordered to pay spousal maintenance.

What on earth more do you want?!

The loan to the father has been paid back from the sound of it so it is irrelevant. The only relevance is ensuring all parties have their reasonable needs met. His needs maybe greater in that he earns less, but also your needs are greater in that you are the resident parent. Probably the most relevant information is where is he living now and how is he paying for it. If you can demonstrate he is in a stable housing situation that would be helpful.

I am amazed about how many people here think that my ex should get away with that - so basically it is of no importance that he deserted his child, right, that he moved to Spain with 1/4 of the living costs that I incur in London with hardly any financial responsibility for his son. So lucky for me that I found this job because otherwise, with my previous job, by now I would be on benefits and worried and sick to death about not knowing how to make my ends meet... And as a little thank you for all this, I should then maybe also pay him spousal maintenance? That's all a bit of a joke, isn't... Because what is needed here is a roof over the head for my son and preferably the roof he has now, because he sees this as his home. But it seems OK that my ex is pushing for a buyout, and if I cannot, for the sale of the flat... So interesting, all that matters is the money, what this means to my son, nobody and no judge seems to care about

OP you seem determined to be offended.

There are at least two very experienced family solicitors on this thread, but we can't help if you just want to rant.

OP unfortunately for you, financial remedies is not based on "fault" in England and Wales. The courts do not "rummage through the attic of a marriage".

People are allowed to walk away from their families and this does not effect their entitlement to a proportion of the financial pot (in some cases they will still get a bigger proportion of it because their needs are considered greater). I can understand why you feel it's unfair. It is very easy for us not involved to be able to stand back and just talk about statute.

Any minor is the court's first consideration (under s 25 MCA), but not the most important. The court will want to ensure your child is adequately housed, but that does not mean necessarily he gets to stay in the house you currently live in - even though I understand why you feel this would be best. It may mean an order for sale and potentially going into rented.

A lot of people go to Final Hearings thinking their will be some sort of validation and generally there isn't. Often both parties are unhappy because neither gets what they want and they are put through a lot of stress. That's why the courts have FDRs to try and avoid final hearings.

As I said above, do take on aboard what the judge has said and do think about trying to settle this on terms you can live with. I won't go as far as to say "happy" , but you could move on with your life with.

The Law doesn't care at all about the circumstances, only how they affect the legal side of things. So cheating husbands, deserting husbands/wife's, etc really don't come into the equation. It's all about the money and the law.