Husband's ex wife wanting more money

paulineb_2

Its actually not the case that someone has an automatic right to 50 per cent of a property on the break up of a marriage, even if you are joint owners, it can depend on a number of factors and a court will often decide who gets what percentage

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/finding_a_place_to_live/Buying_and_selling/buying_with_other_people/joint_ownership

FatVonD

Mojisola wrote: »

If that's true how is it that many single parents on here talk about going to work as well as raising their children?

Because they pay for childcare. Instead of paying for childcare he covered her contribution to the mortgage for her.

FatVonD

paulineb wrote: »

Its actually not the case that someone has an automatic right to 50 per cent of a property on the break up of a marriage, even if you are joint owners, it can depend on a number of factors and a court will often decide who gets what percentage

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/finding_a_place_to_live/Buying_and_selling/buying_with_other_people/joint_ownership

That's true, but any deviation is usually in favour of the parent with residency.

Mojisola

FatVonD wrote: »

Because they pay for childcare. Instead of paying for childcare he covered her contribution to the mortgage for her.

But most single parents pay a mortgage or rent as well as child care.

FatVonD

FBaby wrote: »

Oh really! Did she sign a paper to say that when he turned 18, she would sell the house and give him the 45% in equity? I very much doubt it. The reality is that the property is hers to dispose as she wishes and wasn't put into a trust to benefit the child only (unless of course OP has left such information out of her posts).

Yes, for the benefit of his son. His son will be able to live in the same house for another 13 years (at least) so it is for the benefit of his son.

I didn't say he had gifted it TO his son but for the benefit of his son. Why else would he have done it?

FatVonD

Mojisola wrote: »

But most single parents pay a mortgage or rent as well as child care.

Sorry, Mojisola, I'd like to reply but I don't get your point!

paulineb_2

FatVonD wrote: »

Of course she was, it was hers!



She has not paid one tenth of the value for a £300,000 house, she owned 45% of it anyway! She has got a £300,000 house for £165,00, which is still a great deal but get your facts straight!

She paid nothing into the mortgage when they were living together, she may have owned a percentage of the house under the law, but she didnt actually make monetary payments for the percentage she was entitled to did she?

So she hasnt actually paid out £165 000 to own this house outright, shes paid £30000 which is massively different.

Actually, after doing some reading, its not automatic that someone will get 50 per cent of a property when a marriage breaks down, so she might not have been entitled to half in law. She might have been entitled to 20 per cent, or 30 per cent, given that he paid for the mortgage at the time they were living in the house

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/finding_a_place_to_live/Buying_and_selling/buying_with_other_people/joint_ownership

shame this thread has turned into people taking pot shots at one another, Ive no desire to sit down with a calculator and work out who would have been entitled to what percentage

You dont know and I dont know, thats the bottom line. I thought that it was 50/50, in law it might not be according to the above

So maybe its not just me who needs to get my facts straight.

If she paid a 30 grand mortgage which is seems she did and she made no payments into the house in the entire time she was living there, shes got a 300k house and paid 30 grand into it. The share she was entitled to under law, which you are assuming is 45 per cent, she didnt have to pay that £135 000 out. Its not been a monetary outgoing to her, whereas the husband has paid money into the value of the house and walked away with nothing. A bit different from sitting down and quoting percentages I think.

If you read what the OP posted she made no payments to the mortgage the entire time they were living in it

And yes, by law, she would have been entitled to something of the value, but according to the above advice from shelter, it might not necessarily have been 50 per cent.

Whereas he paid a lot into the house in monetary terms and walked away with nothing from it. And just because she got the house as part of a divorce settlement doesnt mean she necessarily got the percentage she was legally entitled to, she could have got a better settlement from him than she would have been entitled to under law.

They made choices as a couple, we do not know what those choices were, we dont know what got them to the point where she stayed at home and he worked.

Their decision. But there are plenty of couples who have more than one kid and who both work and who both pay into the mortgage and pay the bills as well.

People make sacrifices all the time. Yes she probably made some, but I think the OPs husband in this scenario also made a few of his own.

And I do think its pretty generous someone paying into a property for a number of years and deciding to walk away from that property so their child can have a secure upbringing.

Percentages aside and sacrifices for your career aside as well.

I hope that if this reply cheeses you off you chose just to put me on ignore and dont tell me I need to get my facts straight or shout at me in capitals again, we can all view things differently and obviously your view of who got the better deal on this house is vastly different from mine.

But thats ok.

Mojisola

FatVonD wrote: »

Sorry, Mojisola, I'd like to reply but I don't get your point!

Well, I thought you were saying that the father was only able to work and pay the mortgage because the mother was at home caring for the child but, as single parents manage to pay a mortgage or rent, he probably could have worked and looked after a child.

His work wasn't dependent on the child having a SAHP.

Many PWC only get the use of the house until the youngest child has reached 18 when it is sold and the capital split between the two parents so the mother in this case seems to have been dealt with very fairly.

FBaby

FatVonD wrote: »

Yes, for the benefit of his son. His son will be able to live in the same house for another 13 years (at least) so it is for the benefit of his son.

I didn't say he had gifted it TO his son but for the benefit of his son. Why else would he have done it?

So it would be fair that when the son moves out, the house should be sold and he should get his 45% back if it isn't to benefit her in any way?

paulineb_2

Mojisola wrote: »

Well, I thought you were saying that the father was only able to work and pay the mortgage because the mother was at home caring for the child but, as single parents manage to pay a mortgage or rent, he probably could have worked and looked after a child.

His work wasn't dependent on the child having a SAHP.

Many PWC only get the use of the house until the youngest child has reached 18 when it is sold and the capital split between the two parents so the mother in this case seems to have been dealt with very fairly.

I totally agree.

Her staying at home and looking after the child may have saved them childcare payments, but again we dont know if they had extended family who would have looked after kids, or whether the OP could have worked part time, shifts when the OPs husband was home from work.

Plenty of people have part and full time jobs and bring up more than one child.

If people do choose to be stay at home mums and the husband works or stay at home dads and the wife works, totally fine.
But there are so many ways people can choose to run a home, the notion that he could only work because she stayed at home to look after the child is one that plenty other families manage to successfully work around.

Including single parents.

By the end of this thread the mum will probably have turned into a saint or thereabouts with all the sacrifices she made for this terrible husband who isnt willing to pay her £150 quid for a school uniform at a weeks notice, when all she got from the divorce was a poxy house worth 300k and 450 quid a month maintenance.

Seriously I hope they all manage to sort this out but lets get some perspective on this before it turns into an episode of jackanory.