Maintenance, marital home, new home.. help!

chilli_burn

OK all, I have the heebie-jeebies firmly installed now!

I am meeting the FNFNI gang Monday night at their monthly meeting and they have a legal and mediation rep there apparently so will kick this off and get the official line

I absolutely do not want legal coming in and telling what I am and am not entitled to, if me and wife can agree what we want then I am happy, and so far it looks like we can.

SO focu will be on maint, CSA and housing.

I have seen clean-break used a lot but honestly I do not know what that really means... I guess it basically means that there is no-financial links other than those legally put in place (CSA, agree maintenance etc.) which would mean either:

1. forcing through the sale of the marital home now
2. forcing her out of it allowing me to live in it and get her to sign it over

I honestly want neither of those positions on the housing so I need options.

I will feedback when I have had a proper legal talk...

cheers all for the advice everyone, I could not have asked for more!. lots of scary possibilities... and I totally understand them. and yes, rose-tinted glasses are still firmly installed, so hopefully the professional consultation will clear them and let me have some clarity of vision past the next 12 months....

I wish there were contracts you could write up, that you signed and would hold up in court and the CSA could not step on, that put all the scenarios in, any breakage from the scenarios would means A,B and C happening etc. and give both parties complete protection. why does the CSA have to stick it's nose in at all when both parties have totally agreed to something!!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

The CSA don't stick their noses in when both parties are in total agreement - there is no compulsory usage of the CSA, one of the parties would have to apply for them to get involved.

chilli_burn

ahh that's good then thank you for clarification, as some of the horror stories I have been given are about the CSA coming in 10 years later with no request from any party, and subsequently wrecking years of agreed settlement

Cally_Smart

Yes,that's right .Basically if a pwc was on income support the CSA were obliged to step in to get CM from the NRP if they were working (or a nominal sum if the were on benefits themselves)to repay the Sec of State what the Government paid out.My husband obviously filled out all the relevant forms then which stayed on file.The pwc should inform them if she was in a private agreement as she had no reason then to claim full income support. My question to CSA is why would a pwc decide to contact them after 8 years when we heard nothing from them then take 14 months to tell us allowing us to keep paying another 14 months which don't count ! Just stay on the right side of the law (and the pwc)In an 'arrears' situation thay will just take up to 40% of your income no questions asked -no excuses -they are presumably used to nrp's who try to avoid paying all together & they will lump you into this category & youcould have nothing to spend on the child yourself & no means of travelling to see them like many people in this situation.Sorry it's more horror story but just as well to be prepared for it. I know I keep going on about our case but it can have a disastrous effect on your future & that of any future partner /wife who know they did the right thing with out being ordered to by anybody and many sleepless nights worrying about money!I have found the CSA dont really think anybody has a right to a life themselves within a new family.

EclipsedMind

I can only comment on my personal knowledge and experience of UK law. I cannot say if it will apply to your case in NI.

A clean break severs all financial ties between the parties for your lifetimes and even disallows claims against your estate once you peg it. Basically you pay each other off and that's it for life. Its part of the courts guidance that they seek to achieve this whenever possible but where children and income imbalances Judges sometimes opt for a trivial (50p type thing) spousal maintenance instead of a clean break.

TBH I could see your case being an example of why this might make sense. You should be aware that with spousal maintenance in place it could be taken to court at a future date for variation based on needs.

Points to consider - a clean break can be done by consent. It is almost impossible to overturn but in exceptional cases it can be. If your Ex did not have legal advice on the clean break then it would possibly be such a case and would definitely be heard although it would hinge on specifics to determine success. However in my opinion a clean break may not be in her best interests (given housing needs, the children and income disparity) so what advice she gets will be based on how good her solicitor is.

I would not acquire any more assets until you have completed the divorce and have a clean break or it may end up having to be shared with her.

You should also be aware that a Judge will have to rubber stamp your agreement and if they think it is unfair they could refuse and ask for amendments. I personally had to give 60% of assets to ensure I could get a clean break by agreement and in our case she could be rehoused and I was mortgage free to start again with a Mesher order.

Under the circumstances a Mesher order might be a consideration for you two. However they are considered fairly unpalatable these days http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2009/03/13/mesher-order-martin-order/

You would do well maybe to have a look around the wikivorce site
https://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/Financial-Settlements
Should get you to the right area (blocked by my org so can't check)

I would definitely advise both you and your Ex to get legal advice as this could go horribly wrong even when you both have the best of intentions now.

I personally would also consider a shared residence as it will document your intentions for the children and make things smoother in court if you end up denied contact with your kids later on. If things continue to go well then its just a few hundred quid (you represent yourselves to save money and paperwork is easy) spent on a bit of paper that sits in a draw. All orders usually say something like or any arrangements the parents agree so its a minimum not max.

Others will have different opinions as we are all shaped by our experiences and knowledge and often scared by terrible divorces.

EM

clearingout

Cally_Smart wrote: »

Unless the nrp is self employed,job hops or disappears the pwc is usually treated favourably by the CSA and with the tax credits ,chben ,single parent benefits like free school trips ,school meals can usually manage very well.I was a single parent before there was total disregard of the Child maintenance for benefits and I managed very well and ran a car & took my children on holiday.

Could you possibly be any more....bigoted? There is no such thing as 'single parent benefits'. Single parents do not automatically get free school trips, school meals, or anything else as a direct result of their single parent status.

That single parents are disproportionately represented amongst those claiming means tested benefits is a direct result of there being only one income coming into their household, nothing at all to do with the fact that they are 'single parents'.

*heard it all now*

chilli_burn

A divocee i chatted to today suggested that maybe i should take over house ownership and rent back to the ex... Means i still have risk but we get rid of an element on interdependancy

I can take on the negative equity and she can move whenever she wants...

HoneyNutLoop

You could but she would not be able to claim any housing benefit in that situation. See this link to shelter:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/housing_benefit_and_local_housing_allowance/what_is_housing_benefit/housing_benefit_if_renting_from_a_family_member#housing_benefit_when_renting_from_an_ex-partner

Cally_Smart

A single parent can still qualify for these benefits despite having more than £650 a month of CM which is disregarded do you think that is totally fair to people on a smaller income who have to pay for the school trips and their children's school meals? Surely that is unfair!

chilli_burn

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

You could but she would not be able to claim any housing benefit in that situation. See this link to shelter:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/housing_benefit_and_local_housing_allowance/what_is_housing_benefit/housing_benefit_if_renting_from_a_family_member#housing_benefit_when_renting_from_an_ex-partner

hey there,

I have read up on it, and it loos like she would not be able to get housing benefit anyway.. might be able to get some rates relief...

it looks lik when the divorce is through, then she might be able to get universal credit against the cost of rent (private landlord - being me) as she will be off the house.... problem is, there is no universal credit in northern Ireland... and rates for her seems to be zero