Husband's ex wife wanting more money

tinkerbell28

paulineb wrote: »

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.

Some rational common sense. Amazing.

ecgirl07

duchy wrote: »

Can you really not see how resentful and bitter you sound ?

Oh the irony! You have deliberately negatively inferred and completely tainted anything the OP has said, you even tried to have a go accusing the op of leaving the father of her child for her current husband. What happened to be nice to forum posters?

ash28

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

I have a friend whose ex husband was awarded !0% of the marital home and then only when the youngest had left full time education.....he expected 50%. He was supposed to pay the mortgage and didn't and maintenance and that was very hit and miss. That decision was made by a court (when he eventually turned up for a hearing).

It definitely isn't always 50%.

LannieDuck

Are we sure he didn't 'gift' her his half of the property in exchange for something else in the divorce, e.g. retaining 100% of his pension?

There are a huge amount of assumptions flying around this thread, and I'm not really sure any of them help answer the OP's original question.

FatVonD

paulineb wrote: »

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.

How do you know she didn't contribute to the mortgage before they had a child? The OP didn't say 'he sold her his house that he owned before he met her for £30,000', she said that she took on a £30,000 mortgage to pay the remainder owing (or words to that effect) so I think it's likely that it was a joint mortgage.

By that reckoning, is my friend who has stayed at home to raise 4 kids while putting her wages as a childminder into the pot entitled to a smaller share of the property she and her husband own on a joint mortgage as her contribution was less?

paulineb wrote: »

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

So you don't care that you don't have the facts straight? And for the record it doesn't take a calculator to work it out

paulineb wrote: »

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

I'll do nothing of the sort. I don't let things a stranger has said on the internet affect me (and it was perfectly clear my capitals were for emphasis) to that extent so feel free to carry on ranting Do however feel free to put me on ignore because you seem to be the one getting a bit worked up about it.

paulineb wrote: »

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.

You're assuming too much. I am a PWR and also a second wife and I can see both sides and have thanked posts on both sides of this argument. My only previous post on this thread was to say that I think the OP should stay out of it.

My issue is people continually stating that she's been given a £300,000 house for £30,000 and ignoring the fact that she owned 45% of it anyway.

peachyprice

LannieDuck wrote: »

There are a huge amount of assumptions flying around this thread, and I'm not really sure any of them help answer the OP's original question.

:T :T Well said

itsanne

The OP's position seems to have been lost sight of by now. There is a huge amount of speculation and disagreement about the husband and his x's circumstances - rather more disagreement on here than appears to be between them and the OP!

Having posed her initial question, she has since stated that the £150 has turned out to be half the cost and appears to have accepted the situation and moved on.

FatVonD

For Paulineb

Melaniep101 wrote: »

I believe she has a tiny mortgage remaining on a large 3/4 bed detached house (approx £30k) of which my husband paid the bulk of.

Mortgage remaining, so joint mortgage.

He paid the bulk, so she contributed at some point

FatVonD

itsanne wrote: »

appears to have accepted the situation and moved on.

Something a lot of posters could do

FatVonD

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.

I see what you mean, yes, I was a a working single parent with a mortgage myself for many years.

I don't doubt though that his ex being a stay at home mum made his working life a lot easier with him not having to juggle child care in holidays, worrying about taking time off if the child was sick etc.

Mojisola wrote: »

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.

Yes, I agree, she is incredibly lucky.