Splitting up - what happens to the profit from the house sale?

friendofchocolate

Is it that sentence, you're talking about, Dylan: "For example, if (god forbid) my partner were to die, I wouldn't automatically have the right to proceeds of house sale, his pension, etc etc, would I?"

I'm baffled as to why I worded it like that tbh - I honestly can't remember, it's 3 years ago! The house is in joint names and I've contributed to the mortgage for most of its life.

friendofchocolate

"Maybe the way your posts came across was not how you really feel and not what you really intend to do."

Baffled again, The_cat - what do you think I feel/intend to do then?? <getting utterly flummoxed here>

thorsoak

First things first, FoC ....once you decide that you and OH are splitting/divorcing, then get yourself a Rottweiler of a solicitor who can let you know clearly and succinctly just what you, as the parent with custody, is entitled to from your OH. Then you can start to plan your immediate future - for the time being, let the long-term future look after itself!

You would be better-off, benefits wise - regardless of the opprobrium shown by some posters - to stay in your home, paying a mortgage. OK - at the moment the house might have bad memories for you - but you can exorcise them once it is home to you and your children. Far better for them to stay put, in an area that they know and feel safe in, when there are so many other upheavals in their little lives.

Career wise - you have a small business running at the moment - can you "up your hours" there? It will be better for your own sanity to have something to focus on other than the children - believe me, I speak from experience!

You will come through this phase - hard, I know - but you - and your children - will come through in the end. Stay strong!

Mojisola

DylanO wrote: »

And pay taxes, and maintenance, while the OP gets the luxury of not having to work. .

Is there a particular reason that he should pay for his children but she should not?

Of course she doesn't work - children are well known for changing their own nappies, doing the shopping, cooking meals, etc!

No one is saying that she shouldn't work but earnings from a job that are flexible enough to fit round little children probably won't pay enough to cover child care.

I still think trying to stay in the house would be best.

thorsoak

DylanO wrote: »

And pay taxes, and maintenance, while the OP gets the luxury of not having to work. Let's not forget that he is the one that paid for the house, and not her.

And she is the person who is looking after his children!

Is there a particular reason that he should pay for his children but she should not?

It takes two people to make a child ......

DylanO

thorsoak wrote: »

It takes two people to make a child ......

Indeed - and only one of them is financially contributing.;)

the_cat

friendofchocolate wrote: »

What I would want to do is put it in some kind of bond for a few years until my youngest is at school, at which point I can get a job again. Or even lock it away for 10 years until my oldest goes to university!

But I suspect that I will be obliged to simply fritter it away on rent and food until it's all gone - is that right? Thank you for any advice.

From this post, I read that you intend to 'hide' the money away in a bond or similar so that it is not used for your living expenses. Thus you will qualify for the housing benefits etc because it will look like you have less assets

Allowing us poor tax payers to fritter our money away on your rent and food instead.

Which is fraud

thorsoak

And the person who is not contributing financially is loosing out, because at the same time she is not contributing to her future pension rights, as well as dropping down the career ladder.

DylanO

Mojisola wrote: »

Of course she doesn't work - children are well known for changing their own nappies, doing the shopping, cooking meals, etc!

No one is saying that she shouldn't work but earnings from a job that are flexible enough to fit round little children probably won't pay enough to cover child care.

I still think trying to stay in the house would be best.

They won't, but there are very generous benefits that cover other childcare costs, not to mention the maintenance she will receive, and the £40,000 she's got sitting in the bank. But she'd have to actually work and provide for herself then.

The days when raising children was back-breaking work are long over.

The OP obviously wants to be a SAHM - she just doesn't think that she should have to pay for it - she thinks the rest of us should. Why should those parents who don't have a choice about working pay for someone like the OP?

DylanO

thorsoak wrote: »

And the person who is not contributing financially is loosing out, because at the same time she is not contributing to her future pension rights, as well as dropping down the career ladder.

And he's losing out time with his children. There is nothing (other than her own sense of entitlement) stopping the OP from going out and working, certainly not with the overly-generous benefit payments she'll receive.