Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

What share is fair?

21 replies

RoseNarene · 04/07/2017 20:56

Hi all

Splitting up from my lying, cheating ex (as many of you may have read about elsewhere on MN!!) and looking to sell the house.

He's trying to get the kids off me but there's no chance. I've just given up my job to care for them and they are living with me (at my mum's at the moment as he's refusing to leave the house). He is working full time but doesn't earn much; about £20,000.

Once sold, we would have £80,000 maximum between us. Most likely less as I don't see it selling for the highest prediction the estate agents made! I aim to have the children with me most of the time and with their dad one weekend a fortnight as long as he bucks his ideas up and stops being a twat.

Question: What share of this 'profit' is fair, generally speaking?

I know that every situation is different, but based on the circumstances above, what do you reckon? I plan on going to mediation to discuss this with him if he is willing. And yes I have a solicitor but she is bloody expensive so I'm not asking her. Might seek out some free legal advice somewhere but until I do, what do you all think is a fair split?

OP posts:
DerelictWreck · 04/07/2017 21:04

Completely depends on how you bought it! Who put in what money, who has been paying the mortgage etc. Since you are only recently a SAHM, you can't argue that you have contributed in ways other than financial, so it's about the cash input.

Original poster
RoseNarene · 04/07/2017 21:29

Umm... actually I have read that that has nothing to do with it.

But in case it matters, he contributed most of the deposit, but since I earn more than him and I was full time when we bought it, I pulled up our affordability.

But the mortgage has ALWAYS come out of my personal account.

OP posts:
Original poster
RoseNarene · 04/07/2017 21:31

Oh and I was part time before giving up my job. 2 days a week.

OP posts:
RandomMess · 04/07/2017 21:33

Are you married?

QuiteLikely5 · 04/07/2017 21:34

The children's needs will come first.

Can you afford the mortgage?

I think a judge would allow you to remain in the home

Original poster
RoseNarene · 04/07/2017 21:39

Nope can't afford the mortgage. Plus I don't want to stay there. I'd rather sell it - new start and all that.

yes we are currently married. Getting divorced.

OP posts:
thiswillhavetodo · 04/07/2017 21:46

I don't have any advice on this as I split up from my ExH and he left leaving me and DS in the apartment but still pays towards it and my DS (sorry) but I was following your original post religiously just wanted to show some love!!! Could you contact citizens advice? Would they help?? Much love 💐

QuiteLikely5 · 04/07/2017 21:47

80k between two is not a lot and imo not worth grappling over as the lawyers will bleed you dry.

Ask for 50k?

RandomMess · 04/07/2017 21:50

How much of it will you need to buy a suitable home - that could be the key question.

The courts will want to see the DC adequately housed...

The will also look at earning/mortgage potential.

Your mantra will need to be "The DC need to be housed with me" although it's tricky that you were the main breadwinner earning a lot more and your STBXH appears to not be capable of increasing his earnings to the same level as yours?

Original poster
RoseNarene · 05/07/2017 06:47

I'm going into it in the position of being a full time mum caring for two children under 5. Though I was main breadwinner, since we have been married (we got the house a couple of months before we were married) I have been full time for a total of about 7 months in a period of 5 years, as I have been caring for the children.

I've looked into house prices and he will be able to afford a house with a 30% share of the capital, what with help to buy and all that. Plus he could also look into using his parents as mortgage guarantors. I know all that because I've been looking into it myself! There are definitely plenty of options for the both of us but my argument would be that I need a bigger share in order to provide for the children.

I know that the only reason he wants house / kids is to hurt me. He was talking about earning potential too but he's been accepted on an accountancy course so if he's going to argue that I could be earning £40k or more (which I could as head of dept but there's no way I would get a job like that with all the time I've had off work) I could argue that he could be earning that once he has done his training.

My solicitor told me that earning potential didn't matter because I've been the children's main carer for so long.

OP posts:
Original poster
RoseNarene · 05/07/2017 21:26

Bump :)

OP posts:
Traveller123 · 13/07/2017 11:27

To OP. Every case is different. That children are aged under 5 will likely entitle you to a larger share of the assets. However, that your Ex Husband earns much less than you have earned in the past will go against you.

Original poster
RoseNarene · 13/07/2017 14:53

Seems unfair that that should go against me when I am currently earning nothing at all.

OP posts:
Traveller123 · 14/07/2017 07:28

To OP. That you want to be RP, but have earned more in the past is a bit of an odd situation. Usually the other way round.

Court might consider the option that Ex Husband becomes RP and you become NRP due to your higher earning potential?

Original poster
RoseNarene · 14/07/2017 15:28

Would court consider me as NRP just because my earning potential is higher? Does the fact that I've been main carer for 85% of the time since our children were born not count for anything?

OP posts:
Traveller123 · 14/07/2017 16:46

To Op. courts place a duty on both parents to maximise their income. if you have been main carer for 85% of time since they were born sounds like you lived apart from the x for a long time before divorce? If you were living together and both working full time how do you arrive at figure of 85%?

Original poster
RoseNarene · 14/07/2017 21:04

No, I mean that 85% of the time we were together, I was working part time to care for the children (or I was on Mat leave) whilst he was full time.

OP posts:
Original poster
RoseNarene · 14/07/2017 21:06

So what you're saying is that even though I have a child under 5, a court would want me to go to work full time? So just because my earning potential is greater I will lose my children?

OP posts:
Traveller123 · 15/07/2017 05:03

Courts are required to give priority to children first particularly at that age. If one parent can earn much more than the other court may consider that the higher earner should work whilst the other parent looks after child as in best financial interest of child You would not lose children as court should also issue a contact order at same time.

Might explain why your ex fancies his chances to have children?

Afterthestorm · 16/07/2017 19:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
RoseNarene · 16/07/2017 20:58

No I wasn't working full time. My ex was working full time. I was working 2 days a week

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page