Ex-Husband left me with all Bills to pay

Croasdale01

**NB I'm writing on behalf of my current partner**

Background: Ex-Husband worked full time , wife (now my partner) is a full time mum 3 children

The Ex walked out on the family home in March 2015. All bill, including the mortgage were in his name. Immediately he stopped paying the mortgage and bills and his wife had to pick up the bills even though she did not work. He was unemployed (full time looking after kids etc) Consequently debts for Electricity and mortgage were accrued.

To cut a long story short:she found out he had stopped paying the electricity bill about 1 year before he walked out and the debts were passed to his wife, as she remained in the family home and the electicity company SSE installed a prepayment meter in the house.

Since I have become her partner I have found out that the debt is about £1400. She is paying it off at £5 a month.
She has no correspondence from the supplier SSE , just a direct debit and we would like to know if the ex-husband is liable for some of this debt. as the debt was accrued when he was in the family home .They are now divorced (since Dec 2016).
The family home was sold as part of the divorce settlement and she now lives in rented accommodation.

Regards
Ian

Comms69

Croasdale01 wrote: »

**NB I'm writing on behalf of my current partner**

Background: Ex-Husband worked full time , wife (now my partner) is a full time mum 3 children

The Ex walked out on the family home in March 2015. All bill, including the mortgage were in his name. Immediately he stopped paying the mortgage and bills and his wife had to pick up the bills even though she did not work. He was unemployed (full time looking after kids etc) Consequently debts for Electricity and mortgage were accrued.

To cut a long story short:she found out he had stopped paying the electricity bill about 1 year before he walked out and the debts were passed to his wife, as she remained in the family home and the electicity company SSE installed a prepayment meter in the house.

Since I have become her partner I have found out that the debt is about £1400. She is paying it off at £5 a month.
She has no correspondence from the supplier SSE , just a direct debit and we would like to know if the ex-husband is liable for some of this debt. as the debt was accrued when he was in the family home .They are now divorced (since Dec 2016).
The family home was sold as part of the divorce settlement and she now lives in rented accommodation.

Regards
Ian

If they are divorced, what has happened to the split of assets? Did she not receive a pay out?


Yes he is liable for the debt and it's unclear why she accepted it and didn't start a fresh account.

Croasdale01

She is naive with such matters. Her ex attended to all bills for their 20 year marriage. While the divorce went through - taking 9 months - her main priority was to keep the roof of the kids heads and try to earn money to pay bills. The electricity bill was put into her name, as that is what the supplier required and she accepted that naively. I believe the bill should be split 50/50

sorry divorce went through in Dec15 not 16. she started paying the debt in Feb 16

Comms69

Croasdale01 wrote: »

She is naive with such matters. Her ex attended to all bills for their 20 year marriage. While the divorce went through - taking 9 months - her main priority was to keep the roof of the kids heads and try to earn money to pay bills. The electricity bill was put into her name, as that is what the supplier required and she accepted that naively. I believe the bill should be split 50/50

sorry divorce went through in Dec15 not 16. she started paying the debt in Feb 16

If they're willing to accept £5 a month that is probably the best outcome. But the debt was not hers, it was his.


What happened to the equity in the house etc?

Croasdale01

She got 70% or so, but part was to pay off lawyers fees and mortgage debt. The kids are still with her and he only sees them 4 nights a month.

There were no savings, so the house equity is really her life savings and pension, and she has to pay rent each month and cant claim benefits because those savings are over £16000. A catch 22. She cant work full time because of the kids .

Its unfair that he gets away with lumping the household debt onto her. it sounds like he should be liable for at least half the debt. I guess its up to SSE to decide whether to reduce her debt burden or not.

Comms69

Croasdale01 wrote: »

She got 70% or so, but part was to pay off lawyers fees and mortgage debt. The kids are still with her and he only sees them 4 nights a month.

There were no savings, so the house equity is really her life savings and pension, and she has to pay rent each month and cant claim benefits because those savings are over £16000. A catch 22. She cant work full time because of the kids .

Its unfair that he gets away with lumping the household debt onto her. it sounds like he should be liable for at least half the debt. I guess its up to SSE to decide whether to reduce her debt burden or not.

It's not a catch 22 though. She has a £1400 debt and more than £16,000 in savings. Just pay it off.

fabforty

Croasdale01 wrote: »

She got 70% or so, but part was to pay off lawyers fees and mortgage debt. The kids are still with her and he only sees them 4 nights a month.

There were no savings, so the house equity is really her life savings and pension, and she has to pay rent each month and cant claim benefits because those savings are over £16000. A catch 22. She cant work full time because of the kids .

Its unfair that he gets away with lumping the household debt onto her. it sounds like he should be liable for at least half the debt. I guess its up to SSE to decide whether to reduce her debt burden or not.

She should be able to claim some benefits - child benefit and child tax credits. If she can work part-time - she might get some Working Tax Credits as well.

TBH after 20 years of marriage, it's hard to say what is fair and what isn't when it comes to household bills and expenses, especially when only one person is working. It would involve picking through 20 years of who spent what.

The debt (while in his name) was for the benefit of the family as a whole (it would be different if it was his gym membership, or golf clubs etc), plus adding the fact that she did get 70% of the equity from the house. It doesn't sound that unfair to me - perhaps she should just pay it off and move on.

Croasdale01

she got 70% as he will only have the kids on average 1 night a week. Also it was their home and the kids come first.

All she is asking is that the debt is shared and not all lumped onto her. remember he walked out leaving her with no income, no benefits, and all bills to pay plus mortgage. She was immediately in debt to the tune of several thousand pounds, and then started to accrue solicitors fees on top. Her mental health suffered, she had to find a job to get child tax credits and working tax credits, but that barely covered the mortgage and the job was minimum wage.

Comms69

Croasdale01 wrote: »

she got 70% as he will only have the kids on average 1 night a week. - that has no influence on the way assets are split. Also it was their home and the kids come first. - that does not dictate the split. it does sometimes delay the sale

All she is asking is that the debt is shared and not all lumped onto her. - well she can pay it and then sue him for his half? remember he walked out leaving her with no income, no benefits, and all bills to pay plus mortgage. - really not relevant. She was immediately in debt to the tune of several thousand pounds, and then started to accrue solicitors fees on top. Her mental health suffered, she had to find a job to get child tax credits and working tax credits - I think you mean child benefit (which is not income related) , but that barely covered the mortgage and the job was minimum wage.

She currently has some money sat in a bank account. That money is losing value every day. Meanwhile her credit is getting ruined by not paying her debts.


- How is this even up for debate??!!

fabforty

Croasdale01 wrote: »

she got 70% as he will only have the kids on average 1 night a week. Also it was their home and the kids come first.

All she is asking is that the debt is shared and not all lumped onto her. remember he walked out leaving her with no income, no benefits, and all bills to pay plus mortgage. She was immediately in debt to the tune of several thousand pounds, and then started to accrue solicitors fees on top. Her mental health suffered, she had to find a job to get child tax credits and working tax credits, but that barely covered the mortgage and the job was minimum wage.

Regardless of the reasons, she still got 70% of the equity. It just feels as though she/you are focusing on something, which all things considered, isn't the biggest issue in all of this and which could easily be resolved. I'm just wondering why that is?

I still don't think it is particularly unfair - unless you start calculating how much her ex spent on bills/mortgage payments etc over the 19 years and the cost/benefit of your partner being able to stay at home and using that to work out who owes what to who.
If she had walked away with nothing, I would understand but she didn't.

I'm not saying that he has behaved well - walking out etc, although only they know the ins and outs of their marriage, - but for the sake of £700 (his half of the debt) it just feels like a lot of angst; sometimes it's healthier to let things go instead of a drawn battle in an attempt to get something that she feels equates to 'fairness'.

maman

She may be naive but she did have a solicitor to advise her. It sounds to me that a full and final settlement of 70% of the equity in exchange for paying off his share of the debts is reasonable.

He must have spent much more than the £700 of his earnings on her and the children over the years. 20 years as a SAHM is an indulgence they obviously couldn't really afford. I think she's fortunate that the company has accepted a payment of just £5 a month when she has so much in the bank.