*Please Help* Husband taking me for everything...

duchy

I know the thought of what a solicitor may cost is scaring you BUT not having a solicitor may cost you a great deal more. As his new lady is a solicitor it's a bit like him having a big gun and you having a water pistol at the moment.

Most solicitors will do half an hour's free advice -make an appointment with one that specializes in Family law (this is important).

Don't sign ANYTHING until you've taken advice -Just because HE wants a divorce doesn't mean you need to agree to it until everything is agreed in writing.

kat74

I may have missed this, but is anyone living in the house right now?
Can you rent it out?
If you're both paying £500+ towards the house costs, add the rental income on to this and it will chip away at the negative equity.

I have a friend in a very similar situation; they have tennants who cover the cost of the mortgage, plus about £400 pcm addtional payments that they're each making.
They've done this for a year, and plan to review after another 12 months. They use an estate agent to manage the property; this services costs them but at least they don't need to have too much contact with each other to make it work.

Obviously it depends on your relationship with your husband if this would work but it's in both your interests to reduce the neg eq as much as possible.

redlady_1

I would be reminding him that it is in his interests as well as yours to keep this amicable. You default and it falls to him. His credit rating will be affected and no housey for the lovebirds! For the record, whatever the reason he has cited for the divorce, ask it to be changed to adultery and name the other woman! Do not sign any papers until the finances have been sorted. It is the only leverage you have so use it.

On a plus side, rather find out now that after you have had kids. And I bet you wont be spending £25k (Jesus!) on a wedding again.

You will survive and you will learn from this. And the most amazing thing is that other blokes really respect a woman that hasnt taken a bloke to the cleaners. Good luck and hold your head up high.

Blitz01

carolan78 wrote: »

It does have bearing because if he had not run off with another woman they would both still be living in the house together and the negative equity wouldn't be as much of an issue providing they didn't plan on selling until the market picks up or they have cleared some more of the mortgage.

When a marriage ends it isn't only the heart that gets hurt, as countless threads on here prove it can destroy people financially also. Look on the bankrupt boards and you will see it can leave people with no other alternative. So I think it is rather unfair to say his choices have no bearing on how the situation is delt with.

Of course it has no bearing.
If the relationship goes rocky, and 1 person leaves, that has nothing at all with joint financial liabilities.
If the wounded party was a man here, i think the answers would be very different, and lets not forget, we are only getting one side of the story.

Your defence here is all 'ifs and buts'...........but you decline to recognise that facts.

If your aunt had meat and two veg she would be your uncle remember.

minimoneysaver

If your current mortgage agent won't allow tenants, then why don't you re mortgage with a company that will. In the housing market as it is, it is unlikely to sell quickly, especially if it really is overpriced and empty. I don't understand why you are both throwing good money after bad when you really don't have to. Another option is move back in and bring a friend in, like the rent a room scheme, that way you are still under the same roof (not sure if you need to even declare this to mortgage company).

princeofpounds

why don't you re mortgage with a company that will.

Almost no firms will offer a remortgage to a property in negative equity. They are stuck. Both stuck in fact - they are both in this situation together equally according to the law. They should try to sell and separate but they need to reach some kind of agreement on the negative equity to get an agreement to sell.

Just like people not being able to move, it's very difficult to sell up and divorce cleanly when negative equity is involved.

JoJoB

I would look at challenging them on the no-renting out decision. I'm not sure how, perhaps CAB would be able to offer advice as to procedure. But basically since the recession mortgage companies have been given guidelines telling them to do everything possible/within reason to prevent people losing their homes. This includes offering options such as interest only, or mortgage breaks. There may be a way you can challenge the decision - maybe through the financial ombudsman?

carolan78

Blitz01 wrote: »

Of course it has no bearing.
If the relationship goes rocky, and 1 person leaves, that has nothing at all with joint financial liabilities.
If the wounded party was a man here, i think the answers would be very different, and lets not forget, we are only getting one side of the story.

Your defence here is all 'ifs and buts'...........but you decline to recognise that facts.

If your aunt had meat and two veg she would be your uncle remember.

There is no if's or buts and gender doesn't come into it as the principle works both ways. If it had been the op that had upped and left him for whatever reason she would have put him in that postion. It has everything to do with joint financial liabilities because instead of trying to work on a rockey marriage one has had an affair and walked away putting the op's life and finances in turmoil.

How did I ignore facts...the facts we are all working on are those the op has told us ie HE CHEATED AND MOVED IN WITH THE OTHER WOMAN!!!! His choice.

I really do not understand why you can not see it has bearing. As I stated before if one half of the couple chooses to leave then they have created the financial situation the couple then find themselves in when negative equity is involved. Life is all about choices and all choices have conciquences and unfortunately the situation they are currently in with the negative equity comes down to his choice to leave. As I also stated previously if he had stayed yes the neg equity would still be there but as they would be living in the house it wouldn't be such a huge issue as it currently is. So it has a huge bearing, the chioces one partner made has effected them disaterously in the financial department as well as emotional.

This would work both ways regardless of who it was having the affair. I really don't go in for all this sexim rubbish, if it is wrong it is wrong no matter how much or little meat and veg you possess

candytwinkle

Why should he stay and work on a rocky marriage??

He obviously does not love her so what would be the point in prolonging the break up for financial reasons?

At least he was true to himself and now she's free to find someone who does love her

smartpicture

candytwinkle wrote: »

At least he was true to himself

'Being true to himself' can often be replaced with the phrase 'being selfish' without in any way changing the meaning.