Financial advice for divorce re house %

[EL8888]

A friend of mine has been separated from her husband for about 12 years. He left her for someone else and they had young children. During that time he never paid her child support and just paid half of the mortgage. He has now met someone else again, fallen madly in love and wants a quick divorce. She wants rid but he wants half the house. Which seems unreasonable to me. Legally am l right in thinking he should get less? I have suggested she gets legal advice ASAP -it seems like her ex is trying to railroad her into this

There’s also pensions and savings that would be taken into account - not just the house. Does she have a lesser earning potential than him due to being part time raising the kids etc.

She could put a maintenance claim in now as well as the kids are still in education.

There’s a lot more to think about than just the house, which is why she needs legal advice.

OP, he could claim that his contribution was CM because even if he hadn't paid a penny towards the mortgage over these past years, he can still legally claim 50% equity because his name is on the deeds.

I don't see how she can object really. She happily accepted his money, and admits that she couldn't have held on to the house without him paying 50% of the monthly mortgage payments, so it's a bit rich to try to get out of paying him his share of the equity now. Presumably he now needs this in order to buy a property for himself, as is his right.

Were there other assets - pension, shares, savings? They will all go into the pot to be carved up, even assets they've amassed since their separation are on the table. It's crazy that they waited so long to sort it out!

If her salary is similar to his, then the starting point will almost certainly be 50/50.

She may be able to negotiate a few more years in the house, or he may make the case that she could house the children perfectly adequately in a smaller house/cheaper area.

@EL8888 I just don't understand why people don't take legal advice to start with . Its common sense . There are regularly threads on here like this .

The other issue is she needs to be consistent on the issue of CMS. If as she states she did not claim because it would have been peanuts, then she cannot equate the mortgage payments as CM.

She also does need to consider what she can best achieve from this. If she can buy him out at c40-45% and he avoids fees and costs it might work out ok for both of them.

Her advantage here is his urgency and he could settle if she makes a reasonable offer that is fair and affordable for both.

@GylesYronwood He definitely has a pension and maybe shares? She wants some of the pension after years of working so few hours as she had no childcare and he wouldn't assist

@TheStuffedPenguin l know. When my parents split up then one bought the other out of the family home. In an odd way and with no legal input or documentation. When l got divorced l did everything in a very legal and official way especially as my ex wanted me to walk away with basically nothing

@LemonTT good point. She’s in no rush and he is, she’s not thrilled about still being married to him. But after this long it’s by the by

If he wants a quick divorce she can use that as a lever - the house and in exchange she signs the papers immediately and makes no claim on his pension, savings, child maintenance etc. Tell him otherwise it's court and will takes far longer and cost him £££ in legal bills

Advice on here about financial agreements for divorce are worth little except what has already been said that the whole picture will be taken into account, eh pensions savings etc. Only reason to change that is if they had a financial agreement on separation which not many do.

Lawyer it is and await the bills to start arriving!

If she wants some of his pension she mat be able to negotiate to get more of the house too.

She should also be prepared to not get any pension contributions since they separated. It's going to get complicated because they have been separated so long.

She also needs to be prepared for him to argue she could have gone fulltime years ago. Not just recently.

well if he gets 50% out, after putting 50% in then she hasn’t gained financially. He has invested in the house and is quids. While she has maintained the house and fed / clothed etc 2 children all by herself

And if he had paid CMS instead of half the mortgage, he still could argue 50%. His name is still in the house.

I think the problem is, she was happy to accept the situation (presumably) because it meant she and the kids got to stay in the family home. But maintaining a house would still have been her costs, if he paid CMS and not half the mortgage.

He's a shit. But such a long operation could have arguments from both sides

The other issue is how much can she afford in legal fees to argue. It's sad, but true.

She really does need to see a solicitor op.

Personally I would approach it as him paying cm that just happened to equate to 50% of the mortgage payments.

That way she can say that she has paid the mortgage out of her own income for the past 12 years, maintained the house, curtailed her income/earning potential by working part time due to caring responsibilities and depressed her own pension planning as a consequence.

Meanwhile, he has continued to pursue his own business and acquire shares/savings and a pension whilst unencumbered by childcare responsibilities.

To be fair to him, he has consistently paid for 12 years, which is more than many do. He is allowed now to want to finalise the financials in order to release cash and buy his own home. But that doesn't mean he gets to have it all his own way. A solicitor can tell her what to reasonably expect. It may be 50/50 if his financial situation is modest, but I suspect 60/40 in her favour would be more likely in these circumstances, more if he wants to hang on to his pension and shares.