thought on divorce and house/assets please

daska

paddy's_mum wrote: »

This husband has his amoral friend actually in the house in front of the wife!!! If he's this in-your-face, your sister ought to be seriously thinking about getting her sexual health checked.

100% agree, but maybe keep quiet on that one until she's seen the solicitor. It's Friday today, it'll only add to her stress load if you tell her now.

It would definitely be worth asking the solicitor whether there is any mechanism that can be put in place to prevent the new GF entering the house - it is obviously inappropriate, if only because the children are going to find it incredibly confusing. Yes, it's his house so he is legally entitled to invite her in but it's the children's home so the solicitor may be able to suggest a plan of action.

brians_daughter

lol paddys mum...nope no luck with in laws (but, being honest shes quite ok after the most recent disagreement we had...lets hope it lasts eh?). Must tell younger brother to try harder when he finally finds 'the one' lol, mind you, then 'the one' would be in for a shock with my parents as in laws he he !

Oh yes, they were both sat in the dining room looking at cyprus holiday brochures (my sis wouldnt let him use the laptop - shes resorted to 'if the house is yours the laptop, washing machine and kettle are mine...childish but much needed therapy)

TBH my sis's in laws are absolutely mortified at what has happened and have been there everyday for my sister. Im just glad of that tbh as i could think of nothing worse than her having to deal with all this and battling in laws as well. Now my mother is a different story altogether.... i am up to about a dozen counts now of her telling him she will kill him... again childish and not right but if you knew my mother. and you could see a 4 foot 10 inch woman strike the fear of god into a 6 foot 2 man you would be rolling on the floor laughing as well...its the small things that bring smiles in situations like this isnt it lol

paddy's_mum

It's a good job this isn't 1610 or I'd be done as a witch for what I'm about to say ...

I do, so very, very badly, hope that when this husband and his 'lady' go off on their holiday to Cyprus, that their luggage ends up in Bangkok, the plane loses an engine, their hotel is infested with cockroaches and bedbugs, she gets sunburn badly enough that any hanky-panky is off the menu, that he gets Delhi belly for the duration, and that because the application slipped out of the mailbag and under the front seat of the postman's van, his holiday insurance won't cough up any compensation. If his camera, expensive jacket and wristwatch as well as their credit cards get stolen during a late night mugging, that would be icing on the cake.

Seriously? I hope these two end up with each other for any woman so lacking in honesty and integrity to be brazenly and unashamedly sitting like a vulture in the home of a 10 month old child deserves every rotten thing she will surely get when her beau behaves towards her in the same callous way that she has so willingly helped him to behave towards your sister.

I suspect, though, that by the time he has met his mortgage and child maintenance obligations, plus put a roof over his own head, there won't be enough money left over for gallivanting round Europe - altogether now, folks ... aaahhh, poor things :rotfl:

tincat

Not that I have any idea whether it counts, but does your sister still have the other house?

Would that make any difference?

I'm just thinking that if he can show she has somewhere else to go he would be in a stronger position.

I hope not though.

Pee

The starting point on a divorce is 50/ 50 of any assets owned by either party.

She is in a stronger position, having the children.

The fact she contributed her own house to the situation does not matter - but surely ought to make him think twice.

Thank goodness she married him seeing as they put the house in his name. If she had kept it in her name, it would have probably been financially better for her not to have got married.

tincat

Pee wrote: »

The fact she contributed her own house to the situation does not matter - but surely ought to make him think twice.

As far as I can see (open to correction) she didn't contribute her house and still owns it; she just used some of the equity. Therefore, if the starting point is 50:50, surely her house would be taken into consideration as well. It would reduce what she is due if she still owns it.

Pee

tincat wrote: »

As far as I can see (open to correction) she didn't contribute her house and still owns it; she just used some of the equity. Therefore, if the starting point is 50:50, surely her house would be taken into consideration as well. It would reduce what she is due if she still owns it.

You are def right if she still owns the house that will be taken into account, too. However I understand that she sold the house.

elfen

I hope they both get diarrhoea......just imagine them both fighting for the lav when they think they're gonna go get jiggy.....bliss....

I think your ex should have more concern for what his children are seeing, they see mummy and daddy and daddy with another lady and won't know what to think, specially the five year old, who I'm hoping will ask daddy why there's a new lady....and seeing him get out of that (since we all know what 5 year olds are like). Tell him if he wants his floozy round....it's when the kids are in bed or you are all out of the house, and any trace of her has to be removed before you return.

But yes, since you're married and have kids AND you have a paper trail, she'll more than likely get a 50/50 or mayble slightly more split....and it might be ordered not to sell the house til the wee ones are 18....so that gob!!!!! that calls himself your hubby may be in for a shock

floss2

brians_daughter wrote: »

...Anyway, she sold her house, 25k equity and they spent £10k of it on home improvements, plus she gave the £25k deposit out of her home as well, so in effect contributed £35k cash to the house,a s well as 1/2 the mortgage payments...

tincat wrote: »

As far as I can see (open to correction) she didn't contribute her house and still owns it; she just used some of the equity. Therefore, if the starting point is 50:50, surely her house would be taken into consideration as well. It would reduce what she is due if she still owns it.

Pee wrote: »

You are def right if she still owns the house that will be taken into account, too. However I understand that she sold the house.

I think the top quote answers any question of whether she still has her previous house...

kingfisherblue

My ex tried to bully me into selling our home when we split up - he wanted the money to put towards a new house for him and the woman that he left me for. My case was more complicated because we have a disabled child, but I was told by my solicitor that he could not force the sale until our youngest child is eighteen.

My ex then decided to try to bully me further and told me that because I hadn't contributed to the mortgage payments, I wouldn't get anything from the eventual sale. Wrong again - when I was working, both wages went into a joint account to pay everything. When I gave up work, it was to look after the kids and this was seen by the courts as an equal contribution.

He still didn't get it and we ended up in court with barristers. It was really complicated at times, but I won't go into all the details here. My main concern was what would happen to our disabled son, as he will never be able to live independently. The judge found in my favour - the house does not have to be sold until my son no longer needs it as a home (even if this is at his death - he has a life expectancy of 65-70 years), or until I die, or if I marry or cohabit for six months or more - whichever is first. Then he gets 50%.

So my point is that the OP's sister should sit tight (no matter how unpleasant) and get good legal advice. I found a solicitor who specialised in family law, from looking in the Yellow Pages.