Ex husbands share of house

Bossyboots

That does not mean though that one third of the house belongs to the children. It is because the person with the children will need a larger property than the lone parent. The lone parent could still have a charge against the property to ensure that subsequently he gets the balance of his share if that is greater than one third.

zzzLazyDaisy

When a house is purchased by a married couple in joint names, if they separate, each is entitled to half the sale proceeds after the mortgage, estate agents fees, etc have been paid.

The ONLY way that can be changed is by the Court as part of a divorce, or by agreement between the husband and wife (usually as a result of advice from a solicitor about the likely outcome should they go to court).

The Court has the power to adjust the property ratio in the context of a divorce, and in doing so will take into account all the circumstances, including whether there are any children, how long it will be until the youngest leaves school, and who will be the main carer during that time.

Sometimes there is a trade-off with pensions - eg the wife will agree not to seek a share of the husband's company pension in return for a larger share of the house.

The important thing is that EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT. All circumstances must be taken into account. What happens to one person's friend/sister/etc cannot be taken as a guide as to what might happen in another case.

If anyone has concerns about children and property on a marriage break-up, they should ask around and get a recommendation for a good solicitor, and seek legal advice as soon as possible.

hilstep2000

When I got divorced 5 years ago, I was concerned that my children (then 9 and 13) and I would be out on the street, but my solicitor, (who was brilliant) told me that my husband had to provide a home for us until the youngest one was 18. He could NOT force us out, or make me sell the house till then.
As it happened, we came to an amicable agreement, and I got the whole house.
I think your daughter needs to talk to a good solicitor, she needs to stay put for the time being.
Hope this helps.

micki

Thanks a lot to you all for your advice and concern, I appreciate it. I think deep down she know's that she wont be put out on the street !! but to hear it from someone outside the family is comforting.
Thanks
Micki

Joannekerry

A friend of mine recently divorced, 1 child working, 1 at university and 1 at school. His wife only worked part time. When they went to Court she ended up with 90% of the profit from the property. The solicitor argued that even if she got a full time job she could not afford to buy a decent property and obtain a mortgage to suit, hence she ended up with nearly all of the profit from the property to purchase a house.

The only problem with all of these things is that the only person who benefits from divorce is the solicitor. Would it not be possible to try and sort out an amicable agreement leaving more money to share?

kazbabe

Im divorced but still going through the financial side of the proceedings, its a very messy and horrible thing to go through.
I work part time and have two children 5 and 6. my ex will get 12.35% of the house that was once the matrimonial home. this was agreed in the courts by the judge.
He had the endowment policy and halifax shares which he could cash in as he needed the cash. He had half the furniture and fixtures as was seen fit by everybody as well.
He has paid nothing towards the mortgage for at least three years if not more and for maintenance only pays £5.50 a week for his two children. I have managed to pay the mortgage since i've been working and also helped pay for everything as best I could even when i had my girls.
In the divorce papers he wrote he was the breadwinner but as people say i was bringing up his children and looking after the house.
Solicitors will really go for the benefit of the children living in the household, although my ex thinks otherwise. I am having to pay to take my ex off the mortgage and also the mortgage deeds, all the details on in the court order which has to be taken notice of.

peterbaker

Yeah as Daisy says every case is different but where there are children involved both parents should be persuaded very quickly that the children must come a VERY BIG first. Unfortunately too many mothers hang their hats on that alone and will not try to discuss amicable variations. Then it is all too easy for the children to end up as some kind of human shield when the shouting starts because the husband inevitably gets treated like a leper at some stage in most cases.

The way it works in this country at the moment is that it is always unreasonable for a husband who has left the family to discuss taking his share of the house if he has not made a realistic alternate accommodation AND income provision for the benefit of the children first. If it is agreed that he is the one to move out, and that it is best for no further change to the family to occur until they are finished full-time education then he might not get his hands on his part until then, and then only if his ex is very fair-minded about it. Many women use their supposed right to a "clean-break" to argue that even that idea (that the children need the "use" of part of the father's capital for a roof over their heads until they are grown) is not good for the mother because she doesn't want to live in a house that is owned partly by her ex. So sometimes fathers lose their right to chunks of capital forever on that basis. In such a case you would expect a father not to pay much of his income voluntarily to his ex's economy wouldn't you? But he will still have to pay 20% (2 kids worth) of his net income anyway if the CSA get on his trail. Current English law sometimes gets fathers both ways like this!

It's no wonder that people describe divorce has horrible in UK. I let my ex take about two thirds of our assets in the end. She spent about two grand on three lawyers before she realised I wasn't going to let her get away with 75:25 out of principle. I spent about £200 making sure I was on the right track. We had been to "mediation" first as it "seemed a good idea". I discovered they are heavily on the mother's side and by the time we finished my ex had a clearer idea about how finances worked but the mediators had buoyed her up sufficiently for her to have increased her ideas from 60:40 which I had thought fair too, to 75:25. Mediation was actually useless to me and merely served to sway the expectations too far in the mother's favour. My ex and I had similar wage-earning capacity. In fact my ex earned more than me at several stages of our careers. Nevertheless I had continued to pay the mortgage and all the main bills all the time we were separated until we were divorced (3 years).

I still had to argue hard against her final lawyer to get back to two thirds/one third plus of course I volunteered the 20% of my net income until the two kids have flown. I didn't want the CSA involved in my finances thanks very much - who would?

I kept my meagre pension fund and she kept hers (they were about equal).

If my ex hadn't wanted to move afterall, and set up house 120 miles away with another (separated) man then I might easily have had to settle for less.

Luckily for him, he had a grown family and was probably entitled to half his house with no strings. English Law can sometimes cope fairly when the children are not an issue (unless you are a professional footballer and your ex wants to keep herself in the manner to which you have accustomed her until she can wean herself off it!), but introduce young children into the equation and it definitely gets very one-sided. I have even heard of father's clinging on and remaining in the marital home just to make sure the law doesn't go too far against them on the basis they left. The law is an !!!!!! about such things. If a marriage has irretrievably broken down, of course one should leave, and it's usually best for it to be the father, but he shouldn't be penalised for being sensible.

It is galling to see how neatly my ex and her new other half (I like him thank goodness) have managed to liquidate all their assets at the top of the market and are sitting on significant six figures in the bank while they rent and choose their moment to buy again, yet I am basically starting all over again living like a student. I have a tiny studio flat with fold up beds for when the kids are here (which would actually be around 100 nights a year if I didn't take them away on holiday). I don't understand why that is ok and not part of the equation, but it isn't. I was actually living in a rented bedsit when I agreed the divorce and they had to sleep on the floor with me there.

Amicable settlements are by far the best but they don't come easily when women constantly remind each other that they are entitled to huge favoritism if they have the kids.

If there has been adultery by the father, many women around the mother support the victim with ideas of revenge which is extremely unhelpful once divorce is agreed as the outcome and finances need to be discussed.

My negotiation with my ex was a sour mix of threats and more reasonable argument. I think it was probably less traumatic than most because I just made a very generous offer in the end and stuck to it. My ex says she was the one to give up. All this means the UK system is BAD, but the kids must come first and the way the UK system provides in most cases is by treating the father as an outcast. It can be very confusing for the children to see their father vilified just for being the one that had to leave, but that's the way it will remain until we have a proper system.

So, in answer to your question, your daughter and the kids should be fine, but please try to ensure that it isn't forced down the father's throat with threats. Remember he might want to be a good Dad despite being an absent one a lot of the time. To the families around the divorcing parents I say try not to be judgmental, nor over supportive of one against the other. To the divorcing couple I would say try not to use lawyers except for the final admin. Their advice on a fair and proper split will often be useless and lead to much greater upset despite their supposed code of fairness in such cases. Using the local mediation service may help clarify all the issues, but remember they too are taught to be heavily biased towards whoever the children live with and they don't really consider they have a duty to anyone else when there are children. I found them not very clued up about pensions either.

Above all, be good for the children AND fair to each other!

PS Prudent's post on page 1 very neatly sets out the basis of fairness. However, assets can rarely be easily split 50/50 when the children need a decent roof over their heads. That's when someone needs to remind the mother to voluntarily start shedding other assets like HER pension and HER new car to offset the position and not cling on to them demanding "I need them all". If all that fails the mother should be offering to give back the missing capital after the children have grown. I was seriously thinking of asking for some of my ex-wife's pension (YES THAT way round!), but no-one told her that might have been fair. She just got told what excellent bias she might be able to achieve because of the kids, and I dare say that's what most people reading this thread will tell their divorcing daughters!

knight-on-the-town

PeterBaker ... I can relate to almost everything you write. Many women with the encouragement and persistent prompting of their solicitors go for every penny they can screw out of their ex... and the children are an irresistable lever in Court to secure more than a 'fair' share of the equity. Not that solicitors have anything whatsoever to gain by encouraging such conflict ... they are of course on minimum wage (at best £5 per hour) as most of the £250 per hour they charge you (not to mention the £30 they charge to open a letter) is barely enough to cover the cost of running the solicitors offices and pay to keep the Bentley(s) on the road!!!

So for anyone goiong throught this herer are my five golden rules.

1. Solicitors make money when they are working. The more conflict they can fuel the more work they get. Its their business to get their hands on your money.

2. Fathers (and in some instances mothers) DO NOT leave the family marital home til its all sorted. You do not have to sleep there everynight of the week, but if you leave it, it is usually the case that you have sacrificed the one thing which you have in your favour in the negotiations.

3. Fathers particularly should make sure any settlement is watertight in respect of child maintence. My solicitor did not sort this and I am now in Court for a hugh claim for maintenence I have effectively already paid but which the CSA nor the Law will accept I have paid.

4. If the mother involves the CSA BEWARE!!! They are out to get you and will use every trick in the book. Do not assume what they tell you is correct. Do not assume they will keep accurate records. Do not assume that you even wrote the letters you wrote or made the telephone calls you made to the CSA. The truth is what the CSA say it is. Words fail to accurately describe the malice and evil of this organisation where fathers are concerned. If the ex is revengful go to a specialist solicitor to sort

5. Remember... if the financial settlements goes all the way though the Court and decided by the Judge, it is the whole 'families' financial situation on the day of the final court hearing which matters, NOT on the day you seperated or the day the divorce was granted. E.g. If you win the lottery 2 years after separating you ex is likely to have a legitimate claim on that money if the divorce AND the finances are not already legally sorted.