marriage break up and sale of house

pebbles88

boredwithhubby wrote: »

really? i think that is a bit naive really....

I don't agree that the above post was naive, simply reminding & reinforcing what vows you make when you get married. yes there will be variations depending on where you get married & what faith you have etc. so it might not have been those exact words that you both said.

This is only my opinion, I'm not saying i'm right, or anyone else is wrong, this is just my opinion based on whats been said. I truly don't mean to cause you any offence.

When you married this man, you must have loved him, and meant every word of your vows. ok things have changed now, but does it need to be purely about who gets what money? I know things can come across wrongly & out of context through written words, but it appears that the money side of you leaving your husband is the main concern for you? you only mentioned that you have children further on in the thread, not in your original post, but they alone would greatly change how things are divided. Plus you will always be in each others lives because you have children together, so it makes sense to do your utmost to keep things as amicable
as possible.
I am not 100% sure, but from similar threads on here, I don't think the courts (if it got that far) would base much on who paid what when the marital home was bought. In your original house, he contributed to the household for 3 years whilst living there with you, he was still contributing even when the lodger was there, although maybe not as much as he did once the lodger left.

You then bought the home together using the proceeds from the original house, paid off some joint debt, and both paid the bills 50/50 .You stated that you did this even though he was full time & you were part time.... as you have children, would you have been able to work full time due to childcare needs & the costs of it?? (only asking, not criticizing). Surely this would have saved you both money by not having to pay as much childcare?

OH did not bring anything financial to the marriage apart from he paid £2000 for work done on the first house.

... he may not have been able to provide a lump sum of money to the household/marriage, but not everyone is as lucky to have a lump sums stashed away, they have to reply on their work & wgaes, so therefore he HAS contributed financially, just not in the same way you were fortunate enough to be able to.


Because there are more complex factors involved in your situation, and yes I know I said it before.... but you need to get firm & sound advice from an appropriate source.

ETA: crossed with a few recent posts, by the sounds of it he is a very good man, you both seem to be working towards making sure everyone within your marriage will be ok moneywise following the divorce, I apologise for reading some of the things in the OP wrongly.

I think its mediation that can work with you to come to an agreement between yourselves & not involve

SandC

I agree about getting advice as soon as possible. It's all very amicable now but that might change. You don't want to go down the route of having courts decide what's going to happen.

For what it's worth whilst I understand you would not have been able to have what you have now without the equity from your home prior to marriage - you would probably still be there now if you hadnt met, married, had children and started to go up the property ladder. That you can't go back to that original situation is because within your marriage, together you made a family and so really it's not reasonable of you to consider that everything you had before you met him should now be returned to you. Even if he contributed little financially in the early days because you could easily afford for him not to - that all changed when you had children.

I'm not going to say hand over 50% of what's left after debts are sorted and house is sold, but you both need to start again so do consider what he's going to need to provide a home where your children can go and visit and feel comfortable in. You may also have to find full time employment and I would seriously reconsider the maintenance issue - you may resent that if he met someone else and had more children! Better, in my opinion, to give him a share of the cash but have him pay regular and fair maintenance than to give him nothing. Especially as you don't intend to use the cash to buy another property - the money won't last as long as you think it will.

Good luck with it all, but from hereon in it's all about talking, talking and more talking.

hastie

bored,
First off, I really hope you are able to deal with your joint equity amicably.
However, unless you have a pre nup, you are 50/50

when my wife and I got married, she instantly became richer by 80k, ie. equity in property. I cannot imagine not sharing the equity fully as that is marriage.
Many men, including celebs, are on the end of massive stings from divorcing their partners.
Not naive, informed. Now you are too.:)

pinkshoes

I don't see how your hubby is entitled to any of the equity, given all his contributions would have been wiped out several times over with the drop of the house price.

If you're going to work it out based on who paid what, then he would have to give YOU money if he wanted out!

boredwithhubby

pebbles88 wrote: »

I don't agree that the above post was naive, simply reminding & reinforcing what vows you make when you get married. yes there will be variations depending on where you get married & what faith you have etc. so it might not have been those exact words that you both said.

This is only my opinion, I'm not saying i'm right, or anyone else is wrong, this is just my opinion based on whats been said. I truly don't mean to cause you any offence.

When you married this man, you must have loved him, and meant every word of your vows. ok things have changed now, but does it need to be purely about who gets what money? I know things can come across wrongly & out of context through written words, but it appears that the money side of you leaving your husband is the main concern for you? you only mentioned that you have children further on in the thread, not in your original post, but they alone would greatly change how things are divided. Plus you will always be in each others lives because you have children together, so it makes sense to do your utmost to keep things as amicable
as possible.
I am not 100% sure, but from similar threads on here, I don't think the courts (if it got that far) would base much on who paid what when the marital home was bought. In your original house, he contributed to the household for 3 years whilst living there with you, he was still contributing even when the lodger was there, although maybe not as much as he did once the lodger left.

You then bought the home together using the proceeds from the original house, paid off some joint debt, and both paid the bills 50/50 .You stated that you did this even though he was full time & you were part time.... as you have children, would you have been able to work full time due to childcare needs & the costs of it?? (only asking, not criticizing). Surely this would have saved you both money by not having to pay as much childcare?




... he may not have been able to provide a lump sum of money to the household/marriage, but not everyone is as lucky to have a lump sums stashed away, they have to reply on their work & wgaes, so therefore he HAS contributed financially, just not in the same way you were fortunate enough to be able to.


Because there are more complex factors involved in your situation, and yes I know I said it before.... but you need to get firm & sound advice from an appropriate source.

ETA: crossed with a few recent posts, by the sounds of it he is a very good man, you both seem to be working towards making sure everyone within your marriage will be ok moneywise following the divorce, I apologise for reading some of the things in the OP wrongly.

I think its mediation that can work with you to come to an agreement between yourselves & not involve

thank you for taking the time to reply. I can assure you that the money side of things is not my main concern in this . I have done much soul searching over the years to reach this decision and I have lots of concerns, but I didnt come onto a forum to seek advice about these.....thats what my friends and family are for. I came on here simply to get some advice on the money side of things.

Also I was not "lucky enough to have lump sums stashed away". I came to this country when I was 23 with not 2 pennies to rub together and I worked every hour God sent for 2 years to save enoug to put a deposit on a house. I continued to work hard to pay for that house for 10 years before I met my husband. Even after I married and had my 2 children I still work 30 hours a week and contribute 50 % to all household bills. I wouldnt call it fortunate....everyone has the same opportunites to work hard and earn money but some people choose not to.

boredwithhubby

SandC wrote: »

I agree about getting advice as soon as possible. It's all very amicable now but that might change. You don't want to go down the route of having courts decide what's going to happen.

For what it's worth whilst I understand you would not have been able to have what you have now without the equity from your home prior to marriage - you would probably still be there now if you hadnt met, married, had children and started to go up the property ladder. That you can't go back to that original situation is because within your marriage, together you made a family and so really it's not reasonable of you to consider that everything you had before you met him should now be returned to you. Even if he contributed little financially in the early days because you could easily afford for him not to - that all changed when you had children.

I'm not going to say hand over 50% of what's left after debts are sorted and house is sold, but you both need to start again so do consider what he's going to need to provide a home where your children can go and visit and feel comfortable in. You may also have to find full time employment and I would seriously reconsider the maintenance issue - you may resent that if he met someone else and had more children! Better, in my opinion, to give him a share of the cash but have him pay regular and fair maintenance than to give him nothing. Especially as you don't intend to use the cash to buy another property - the money won't last as long as you think it will.

Good luck with it all, but from hereon in it's all about talking, talking and more talking.

thanks for your post. I am more than willing to give my husband enough money to set himself up with a new home as the children will be staying with him twice a week. Me giving him a share of the proceeds does not depend on him giving me maintenance. he cant afford it and why should he as he will be feeding the kids when they are at his. I have never said I woud give him nothing...I am trying to work out what is a fair amount for everyone

DVardysShadow

boredwithhubby wrote: »

it is my first post...yes I have posted it in 2 different sections cos like I said I didnt know where the right place to put it was. I didnt realise it was called cross posting or that it was an issue with anyone or indeed that it would waste anyones times. surely if people didnt want to read it they just wouldnt read it.

The point about it is not the reading of it. Sometimes people spend a good deal of time actually delivering a thought through answer. If someone answers and then finds the same query elsewhere, with the same answer given by someone else an hour earlier, you have wasted their time. So if you must crosspost, then say so out of respect for people who answer.

boredwithhubby

DVardysShadow wrote: »

The point about it is not the reading of it. Sometimes people spend a good deal of time actually delivering a thought through answer. If someone answers and then finds the same query elsewhere, with the same answer given by someone else an hour earlier, you have wasted their time. So if you must crosspost, then say so out of respect for people who answer.

thanks for being so welcoming to a newbie! I see it is true what they say about moneysavingexpert then.

as I said it was my first post so didnt know the etiqutte. Interestingly enough no 2 people have given the same answer in either thread.

thanks though for taking so much of your time to point it out to me.

izzybusy23

boredwithhubby wrote: »

my husband is a very decent man and we have always agreed that if we did ever split that he would not ever try to shaft me financially. our 2 children will be living me and he will want to know that they are ok finacially which they wouldnt be if he took me half for half of the house. I am not asking to retain it all.....I asked for peoples opinions on how the proceeds should be split.

Now that is very naive... its all words until the money is on the table. If he means it great, but be prepared for a cat fight from hell as people can get mean and very nasty over money when divorce happens.

Errata

The split of the assets of a marriage starts at 50/50 and the final split is negotiated from that point, either by the couple, their solicitors or the court. OK?