Spousal and Child Maintenance

activist3

Thank you for all your replies. I think i am going to suggest that she keeps the house and then we split the debt with no maintenance until the debt is paid off (and she gets full CB and Tax Credits). But will see what solicitor suggests. The children are a priority in this and as someone pointed out, i am not going to be not buying school uniforms etc. I would be very happy with 50/50 custody but with me working full time and her working part time it makes sense to have it split differently. I will get a house with my job and therefore dont need to worry about rent myself initially.

Caroline_a

The problem with saying no maintenance until the debts are paid off is that she can go to the CSA at any time, they will award maintenance ignoring any debts, agreements, etc.

I would (so that it's fair) split the house equity, possibly 60/40, split the debt in half, and pay whatever the CSA calculator says. Then you won't get anything nasty at a later date if you do fall out... and in all likelihood you will!

daska

activist3 wrote: »

Thank you for all your replies. I think i am going to suggest that she keeps the house and then we split the debt with no maintenance until the debt is paid off (and she gets full CB and Tax Credits). But will see what solicitor suggests. The children are a priority in this and as someone pointed out, i am not going to be not buying school uniforms etc. I would be very happy with 50/50 custody but with me working full time and her working part time it makes sense to have it split differently. I will get a house with my job and therefore dont need to worry about rent myself initially.

No, No, NO! You are legally liable for child maintenance - AFAIK there is nothing that can exempt you from it, not even a court. She might choose to agree with your suggestion but 30 seconds later she could be on the phone to the CSA and you'd have to start paying. You MUST factor in the maintenance payments.

And you don't have to give up all claim to the equity in the house, it's possible to have an agreement that the house is sold and the equity shared out when the children reach 18 or some other point in time. That might be a fair option in return for taking on the lion's share of the debt.

NAR

activist3 wrote: »

Thank you for all your replies. I think i am going to suggest that she keeps the house and then we split the debt with no maintenance until the debt is paid off (and she gets full CB and Tax Credits).

Good luck with that offer; if I was her I would tell you to take a running jump. And I doubt if a judge would accept this as a "fair offer" either.

Strapped

NAR wrote: »

Good luck with that offer; if I was her I would tell you to take a running jump. And I doubt if a judge would accept this as a "fair offer" either.

This would be a suicidal offer on his part anyway - she'd get the property and then ring the CSA anyway.

fannyanna

Whilst I still stand by what I originally said about not doing yourself over I have to agree with everyone else on the maintenance front.

For one she could agree to what you've proposed and then go to the CSA to get maintenance. They wont care what you've agreed and you will liable to pay 15% for one child or 20% for two (can't remember how many children you said you had).

activist3

NAR wrote: »

Good luck with that offer; if I was her I would tell you to take a running jump. And I doubt if a judge would accept this as a "fair offer" either.

I think that comment is unfair! It looks like i cant win in some cases. I am either too generous or too harsh! Will look to see what the solicitor says. I am presuming they are going to say take half the equity, half the debt and pay £210 per month maintenance which is far worse than what i was going to her anyway. From my point of view i just want to do the best for my children.

clearingout

activist - no, you'll never win! You of course want the best for your children but your original suggestion leaves you wide open to having to pay more and more. Try https://www.wikivorce.com and post your details there as there is a lot of help there (although of course there is help here too!). It's a juggling act and you need to cover your own back into the future - if you don't, you'll end up in a situation where you can't keep the roof over your head.

rpc

activist3 wrote: »

I think that comment is unfair! It looks like i cant win in some cases. I am either too generous or too harsh! Will look to see what the solicitor says. I am presuming they are going to say take half the equity, half the debt and pay £210 per month maintenance which is far worse than what i was going to her anyway. From my point of view i just want to do the best for my children.

Take that as a starting point. The £210 (if that's the CSA rate) must remain fixed but you can play with the debt and equity. It also isn't really part of the settlement and should be treated seperately.

You could agree to take more debt if you have an increased share of equity (deferred until the kids are old enough). This would make her life easier (less debt to service) but compensate you for taking more of it on. IMHO you are better to keep the settlement fairly even and if you wish to be more generous to your kids, do it informally. It will also depend on what the lenders will let you do.

NAR

activist3 wrote: »

I think that comment is unfair! It looks like i cant win in some cases.

I am not trying to be unfair, just realistic having been through all this and been penalised very heavily financially.

For instance, you talk about "family debt" of £26k in post #1; whose name is this in? Can you prove it was all accumulated providing for the family ie have receipts etc. If your ex denies it is family debt and it is in your name you may find you get landed with it - I know I did. So your plans for splitting this may have to be reassessed!

Also you say that you will get a "free" house with your job. When the financial split of assets is being considered a monetary value will be put on this.

You may think you are being fair, the bottom line is most Financial Consent Orders, that are not amicably reached, tend to be very much to the detriment of the ex husband. This is where unfairness comes into the equation.