Divorce & Right to Buy

ska_lover

Just thought I would leave this here

Please be nice to all MoneySavers : There's no such thing as a stupid question and, even if you disagree, courtesy helps.
Please be sensitive : This may be a web forum, but you're still talking to other human beings. Repeatedly or harshly saying someone's wrong, especially on boards like DebtFreeWannabe, Bankruptcy or Benefits, can lead to upset.

We're proud that many people whose financial problems exacerbate mental health issues seek help in the forum, but this means you may be berating someone who's clinically depressed. Please think twice before posting judgmental comments.

Tabbytabitha

MightyMousesMum wrote: »

Yes he can afford it - he earns a lot more than me. A lot more, and doesn't pay towards the upkeep of our son.

And OK, you don't like the word "earned", let's change it to "entitled". I was entitled to the discount as I had been a tenant for 20 years. He was not entitled to the discount as he had been living with his mum. I don't make the rules up - the council offered me £30K discount, I would be an idiot not to take it. View that with controversy if you will, I didn't work hard to get it, but I got it as I was entitled to it.

My needs are greater because I am bringing up our son. He isn't.

I didn't come here to be berated for being a social housing stealing scrounger, hell bent on draining my ex dry.

I came on here for help because I hoped that there would be a way I could afford to keep my home for myself and our son and the only way I could see how was if I get to keep the equity which equates to the discount I was entitled to. If that is not the case, thanks, duly noted.

MightyMousesMum wrote: »

Don't be bitter or blame me for taking up the offer, blame the government, it's their scheme to throw away social housing and then moan that there is a shortage of housing.

I spoke to my Lender, apparently their paperwork reflects that the £30K discount was accepted as a "deposit" paid by me.

It isn't being bitter to point out that the discount is unearned and is totally different from a situation where you might have put extra money of your own into the purchase, as you seem to believe.

Fosterdog

You say you were together for 12 years but have only been married for 5 years, if he was the waste of space womaniser who didn’t pay his way why on earth did you choose to marry him 7 years into the relationship?

Try looking at this another way, you brought the discount into the relationship enabling you both to have a home for 12 years, in return you are leaving the relationship with an amazing son who wouldn’t exist if you had not wasted those 12 years on a loser. £15,000 (which is all you’ll be missing as your half not the full £30,000) is a small price to pay for the privilege of having your child.

Happier_Me

OP I would focus less on the £30k discount in a divorce settlement and more on your entire marital assets and circumstances. Your needs are greater than his because you are the main carer of your child which will also impact your earnings. This will go in your favour in a court (although it certainly is not cheap to sort out your finances in this way!). He also earns more than you and if he has failed to contribute to his child since the split then maybe using this information will add weight to the fact he is financially irresponsible and a larger share should come your way to protect your child. Throw in your entitlement to the £30k may add a little weight to all this (possibly!!??)

I would look at the value of your pensions asap. If he has a greater share of pension savings you can use this in your negotiations to keep the house. Depending on the value of his pot you may not need to buy him out at all?

What other assets/debts does he/you have?

You may not be able to protect the £30k in the way you describe but he can't walk away with a nice fat share of your joint marital assets and wash his hands of his financial responsibilities towards your child either.

Tabbytabitha

You have stated that a £30k discount is the same as £30k as a cash deposit and I have said it isn't. Your opinion is no more valid than mine and is unhelpful in giving the OP false expectations.

AndyBSG

If you were in a 'short marriage', which I believe is less than 3 years, then judges will consider returning both parties to the financial position they were in before marriage.

However, you were not in a short marriage and there is a child involved so the starting point will be a 50:50 split and the only real factor of any note to prevent it being anything other than 50:50 is the wellbeing of the child.

In short, expecting to claim an extra 30K because you 'earned' it is ridiculous and has about as much chance of success as me winning a gold medal at the next Olympics... To put that in perspective, i'm fat, in my 40's, smoke and drink and have no sporting aptitude at all so good luck with that!

System

MightyMousesMum wrote: »

Hello! Help/advice appreciated....

12 years ago, the council offered me a £30K discount so that I could buy my council house. The rent was in my sole name, but I bought the house jointly with my then boyfriend (now husband).

Fast forward 12 years, he has moved out and we are now filing for divorce. He now wants to sell the house and split the proceeds 50/50. IF we were to sell the house, I have suggested that the £30K discount be deducted from any equity before he gets a share of the equity -- ie. If we sold for £100,000 - deduct remaining joint mortgage of £50,000 - leaves £50K equity. Then deduct the £30K discount that I earned by being a council tenant, then split the remaining £20K 50/50 so he gets £10K.

We have a school age son, I would much rather stay in the house and transfer it into my name to be honest, but he wants his lb of flesh before he agrees to do that. How do I stand legally on the division of equity? I can't afford to give him a straight 50/50 to buy him out and that discount was down to me being a council tenant not him, so why should he benefit from it now...

Thanks in advance

That's harsh! So effectively, you propose your husband doesn't get any of the 30k equity you were given 12 years ago and you get it all.

Sorry to say, despite he sounding like he deserves not much, that marriages start at 50/50. If the children live with you, there's a likelihood that the judge will rule in your favour. You may end with the house until they are eighteen OR you may be forced to sell to buy out your husband and then look for something cheaper.

Sorry for the bad news but that's what happens when marriages breakdown. As for him, he has to find something else and start from scratch and not giving him his full share while you stay in the family home is hardly fair on him either, despite what he has done.

TBagpuss

OP, you've had some fairly aggressive responses here, I hope it has not put you off too much.

How a settlement on divorce works is that you and your husband can agree on whatever you want. If you can't agree, then a court would ultimately decide, and would look at the whole finacial picture, including yur respective needs, your incomes and earning capacitities, all the financial assets etc.

The starting point is a 50/50 split and if eveything else was equal - i.e. if you and your husband had broadly equal incomes and mortgage capacities, and pensions, then it is likely that n equal split of the equity would be fair.

However, if your husband has a higher income than you, he is also likely to have a higher mortgage capacity, so he would need less money than you would, from the equity, in order to rehouse. For that reason, it is likely to be fair for you to have more than 50%.

Similarly, if your child is going to live mainly with you, and if you won't be able to afford to rehouse unless you have more than 50% of the equity, that is relevant as well.

Whether it will be fair for you to have as much as £30K extra will depend on all the other factors, but based on what you have said so far, it is likely that it would be fair for you to have more than 50% / pay your husband less than 50% of the equity.

You do also need to take into account other assets - for example if wither of you has a pension, that is taklen into account. If your husband has a more valuable pensoon than you, one option is forthe pension to be split, anothjer is for him to keep his pension but for you to have more of the equity to even thinbgs out.

So it does all depend on the big financial picture.

In terms of the discount, this would be treated as a contribution in the same way as if you had put in £30K as a deposit. However, contributions are not usually very relevant except in very short marriages. Given that you have been together for 12 years and have a child together, your marriage would not be seen as a short marriage.

ska_lover

TBagpuss wrote: »

OP, you've had some fairly aggressive responses here, I hope it has not put you off too much.

How a settlement on divorce works is that you and your husband can agree on whatever you want. If you can't agree, then a court would ultimately decide, and would look at the whole finacial picture, including yur respective needs, your incomes and earning capacitities, all the financial assets etc.

The starting point is a 50/50 split and if eveything else was equal - i.e. if you and your husband had broadly equal incomes and mortgage capacities, and pensions, then it is likely that n equal split of the equity would be fair.

However, if your husband has a higher income than you, he is also likely to have a higher mortgage capacity, so he would need less money than you would, from the equity, in order to rehouse. For that reason, it is likely to be fair for you to have more than 50%.

Similarly, if your child is going to live mainly with you, and if you won't be able to afford to rehouse unless you have more than 50% of the equity, that is relevant as well.

Whether it will be fair for you to have as much as £30K extra will depend on all the other factors, but based on what you have said so far, it is likely that it would be fair for you to have more than 50% / pay your husband less than 50% of the equity.

You do also need to take into account other assets - for example if wither of you has a pension, that is taklen into account. If your husband has a more valuable pensoon than you, one option is forthe pension to be split, anothjer is for him to keep his pension but for you to have more of the equity to even thinbgs out.

So it does all depend on the big financial picture.

In terms of the discount, this would be treated as a contribution in the same way as if you had put in £30K as a deposit. However, contributions are not usually very relevant except in very short marriages. Given that you have been together for 12 years and have a child together, your marriage would not be seen as a short marriage.

Well said, The first actually helpful response

silvercar

Could you have been given a mortgage based on your own earnings when you first bought together? If not, then he has enabled you to be able to buy and deserves some financial credit for that.

If you could have got the mortgage on your own, but chose to add him to the deeds and mortgage then that was a choice you made and one that you can't now retract.

~~~~

If you want to try and score even more off him, consider what percentage of the property value that 30k represented when you bought and apply that percentage to the property value now. It may be an argument for you keeping even more of the equity.

~~~~

I don;t really agree with the 50/50 split if you are providing a home for your child.