Mortgage and/or Child Maintenance

Soubrette

PaulBrian wrote: »

I guess every break-up has it's own unique circumstances but whether I'm a mug or soft or both I suppose my constant position is that I won't see the kids suffer from financial misconduct on my part.

I totally agree though that if my ex wants a better life she has to make it happen off her own back .. I'll always pay the child maintenance as it would be wrong not to.

BTW the wife is definitely also looking for the lion's share of the equity, when and if the house is sold.

I wish you were my ex

Personally I would pay the statutory requirement to her and if I wanted my children to further benefit then I would put money aside for the children.

I would also not pay for a mortgage 100% and allow her to claim the vast majority of the equity although on the other hand I suppose the less equity then the less she'll have to spend on a house for her and the children.

It's a tough one for sure.

Can you remind her that the payments for mortgage are for mortgage only (assuming you'll pay for any increases too?) or negotiate that she has a flat rate and although she'll get extra this time, when the rates go up, she'll have to cover any excess? Could be some time before the house is sold in the current climate.

Sou

PaulBrian

Yes Sou ... the division of equity is a tough one! If I do well it will be at the expense of my kids primary housing need. Against that if I do badly then their second home will not be so good! I'm in a no-win situation really!

Just to be clear I pay the mortgage direct so that money can't be redirected for other uses.

Soubrette

PaulBrian wrote: »

Yes Sou ... the division of equity is a tough one! If I do well it will be at the expense of my kids primary housing need. Against that if I do badly then their second home will not be so good! I'm in a no-win situation really!

Just to be clear I pay the mortgage direct so that money can't be redirected for other uses.

I personally think this is why the CSA is doomed to failure - in most cases the PWC will indirectly benefit from any maintenance. As an example I have two children with my ex - we live in a 3 bed house. I don't need a 3 bed house but I'm really pleased that they get to have a bedroom each and some maintenance might be used to pay for part of the mortgage on this house. If I were the NRP I would want to do my best to ensure that they do get this - but obviously once the children have left home then the PWC then benefits from the capital accrued in the house.

So do you help fund the 3 beds house - because you feel it's the best thing for the kids.

Or do you try and pay as little as possible and have your kids live in a 2 beds (and all those connotations of squabbles, lack of privacy etc) but feel glad your ex did not benefit in any way?

(you general not you particular btw )

it's a toughie:(

Good luck with your situation and please do keep us posted

Sou

PaulBrian

Sou ... you're pretty much hitting the nail on the head. I have no problem whatsoever supporting my kids but the dilemma arises where their benefit extends into a benefit for the ex. Our financial settlement process is now under way so it will be interesting to see how negotiations go and how the equity gets split or assigned. Basically there's only the matrimonial home to sell and right now isn't a good time to achieve best market price so it could be in the kids' best interests to stay where they are rather than take a significant reducton in selling price to achieve a quicker sale? Yet another dilemma!

Caz3121

It appear that there is a fine line between doing the best for your children and being taken for a mug. (my partner had the same with his ex, he ended up funding a lifestyle with 40-50% of his salary when she moved abroad, house with pool and was living with a boyfriend but she would still expect him to pay for everything for the children. She is back in the UK and still seems to see the now-cm of £500 per month 'hers' and when the kids need clothes, school uniform etc he is 'told' to pay for it)

If there is not a huge amount of equity in the property then it may make sense to go for a mesher where you get part of the equity when the children are older (or she remarries/cohabits) but I think the norm is that she would take over the mortgage in her name.

Spousal maintenance is based on her needs and your ability to pay. My partner is a higher rate tax payer, ex now has a part time job but with tax credits and other benefits she has the higher income so no sm was awarded.

It took my partner 7 years to get the balls to stand up to her (the children are both teens now) and in he now has £30k+ in debt accrued over this time.

Leothecat

Paul, you sound like a very kind and generous man as is my DH. DH and started off with nothing together. We both worked very hard to save a deposit and buy our 1st house. Eventually we gained equity, sold at the right time and ended up in our now family home. As far as I can see, we both got us here equally, therefore we are both entitled to half of everything - a completely fair, down the middle split. How could it be any different? Of course, once this house is sold the arrangement will change and we shall work out a different amount of maintenance for DD but I feel very lucky that DH is happy and more than willing to pay for 1/2 of everything even though he has no benefit of it!
I'm really sorry that your other half feels the need to be so greedy - it's a real pity as it will only generate bad feeling.

PaulBrian

Spousal maintenance is of course a worry for me. The ex does now at least have a permanent job (albeit not a full working week) and with tax credits etc she does well enough I believe or so it seemed from her Form E declaration.

PaulBrian

Leo ... 50/50 split is the fairest and I'm told that more an more the Courts are using this as the starting point for negotiation?

I honestly wouldn't feel comfortable with a penny more than 50%. It's a shame that the X doesn't share the same philosophy. It's all about her needs ... my needs and debts aren't on the radar!

Soubrette

PaulBrian wrote: »

Sou ... you're pretty much hitting the nail on the head. I have no problem whatsoever supporting my kids but the dilemma arises where their benefit extends into a benefit for the ex. Our financial settlement process is now under way so it will be interesting to see how negotiations go and how the equity gets split or assigned. Basically there's only the matrimonial home to sell and right now isn't a good time to achieve best market price so it could be in the kids' best interests to stay where they are rather than take a significant reducton in selling price to achieve a quicker sale? Yet another dilemma!

Don't forget though that the parent with care also pays an opportunity cost for having the children. In my own instance the ex and I wanted to have one of us stay at home with the girls and I drew the lucky (or short straw for some ) as I was earning less than he was. When we divorced I returned to work but my opportunity costs are a) I only work part time as I feel it is important to support my children emotionally as well as financially (other families may work it differently and that's fine of course) and b) I am never going to be in a position where I would have been in either seniority or salary wise, if, like my ex, I had been the one to carry on working. I am 40 and have a junior office job because of those 2 opportunity costs. When I left work I was assistant team leader, deputising for a team of 10 and that was 16/17 years ago - more responsibility workwise than I have now

I don't begrudge these choices because I love my children very much but it does make me sad when someone hates their ex so much more than they love their kids and so wants to see their kids have so much less than they should have because they cannot bear to feel their ex had 'won' in some way.

It's dilemmas all the way unfortunately, from both sides.

Sou

PaulBrian

My X, too, chose to give up a good career to look after the kids ... a decision which I fully supported at the time. What irks me slightly is that she could revert to that career now, even on a part-time basis, and earn very good money but she has chosen a different career path which in the short term at least will not pay too well. Of course as it's my fault :rolleyes: that she gave up her career I should pay for that fault via the settlement!

ps I don't hate my X, far from it, what I hate is the petty squabbling over who gets what.