Thinking of buying wife a house and getting a legal separation

Ames

Two points - for benefits, money from the sale of a house is disregarded for at least six months if it's going to be used to buy another property to live in. I don't think this has changed under UC.

The court has to agree your financial separation. Your wife will have to show she's taken legal advice and accepts an unfair split. The court might not agree to it.

NeilCr

Ames wrote: »

Two points - for benefits, money from the sale of a house is disregarded for at least six months if it's going to be used to buy another property to live in. I don't think this has changed under UC.

.

I got that. I am not sure, though, if this case is not a bit different as there is no "cash" as this is a sale of part of the house to an ex. I, honestly, don't know how DWP would view it - especially, if they thought there was an undervaluation of the wife's part of the house.

I suspect that your general line is right. It will be okay for benefits - although the flat in Moscow will certainly be taking into account. But, in a complicated situation like this they both need to take legal advice and not rely on the musings of unknown folks on the internet.

The_Maestro

Thanks for all the replies.

I think some people on here are making a lot of assumptions though. For example, people saying the split is unfair must be assuming that the children will be resident with my wife 100% of the time whereas this will not be the case. It is more likely to be 3 nights with me and 4 nights with her.

Regarding asking tax payers to "pay for my children" well, that is one point of view. Of course the other point of view is that I will be paying child maintenance and buying my wife a house which takes away the single biggest burden on the tax payer, i.e. rent. When we separate and eventually divorce she will be single. If people think divorced people should keep paying for each other then you may as well just argue to abolish divorce itself. She has ILR and will be entitled to claim benefits as a single person like anyone else, including the many many people who have children and never get married.

Ames

NeilCr wrote: »

I got that. I am not sure, though, if this case is not a bit different as there is no "cash" as this is a sale of part of the house to an ex. I, honestly, don't know how DWP would view it - especially, if they thought there was an undervaluation of the wife's part of the house.

I suspect that your general line is right. It will be okay for benefits - although the flat in Moscow will certainly be taking into account. But, in a complicated situation like this they both need to take legal advice and not rely on the musings of unknown folks on the internet.

Sorry, my post wasn't clear - I meant that would be the situation if the finances were dealt with 'fairly', ie the house sold on the open market and equity split. The OP seems to be using UC capital rules as an excuse to buy a cheap house for her instead, which is based on an incorrect reading of those rules.

unholyangel

The_Maestro wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies.

I think some people on here are making a lot of assumptions though. For example, people saying the split is unfair must be assuming that the children will be resident with my wife 100% of the time whereas this will not be the case. It is more likely to be 3 nights with me and 4 nights with her.

Regarding asking tax payers to "pay for my children" well, that is one point of view. Of course the other point of view is that I will be paying child maintenance and buying my wife a house which takes away the single biggest burden on the tax payer, i.e. rent. When we separate and eventually divorce she will be single. If people think divorced people should keep paying for each other then you may as well just argue to abolish divorce itself. She has ILR and will be entitled to claim benefits as a single person like anyone else, including the many many people who have children and never get married.

Key difference between your situation and that of those who have children but don't get married is in the bold part. They were never married. While you might draw a comparison as a basis for how much/little your wife should get, a court will not. They will look at the standard enjoyed before the marriage breakdown.


But both of you will require independent legal advice before signing any settlement agreement so wait and see what they say as they'll have the full picture (while we don't).

The_Maestro

Ames wrote: »

Sorry, my post wasn't clear - I meant that would be the situation if the finances were dealt with 'fairly', ie the house sold on the open market and equity split. The OP seems to be using UC capital rules as an excuse to buy a cheap house for her instead, which is based on an incorrect reading of those rules.

I'm not using anything as an excuse. Where is that definition of 'fair' written. In the UC rules somewhere? Please could you refer me to the wording? I really doubt there is such a distinction. The house value can be fairly accurately assessed, and not selling it and just buying another house incurs much fewer charges and overhead than selling it and then both of us having to find somewhere else to live.

In addition to that, my eldest will still be able to play with her friends here and will not feel quite so uprooted. The house is in need of repairs. We bought a wreck and I've spent 4 years fixing it but its still got issues which would knock quite a lot off the market value which would cost thousands to rectify by workmen but perhaps 1/4 of that if I complete the repairs.

The_Maestro

unholyangel wrote: »

, a court will not. They will look at the standard enjoyed before the marriage breakdown.

The share of time with the children will be fairly equal so the 'standard enjoyed before the marriage' is not that relevant. The arrangement may be 70-80% in favour of the non-breadwinner in cases where the breadwinner is one of these people who doesn't want to play an equal part in bringing up the children, but that does not apply to our situation, and:

1. We are not going to court
2. If we did go to court because, e.g. my wife demanded 100% residence for the children with her, there would be a court battle and she would get 70% of a much reduced amount, maybe even less than the original 50%. Only really rich people would consider this sensible..
3. If we did go to court, the judge could order anything, and would probably order spousal maintenance which doesn't make her any better off and me much worse off.

Given a choice:

A) Me buy a house which is hers forever and can be passed down to the children, or
Me pay her a monthly income which will just go on rent and living expenses

Given that both are legal and possible, If anyone really thinks they would do then I think they should either be canonised as a saint or get their head tested!

Poor_Single_lady

People who pay for their children are not saints.

You are trying to legitimise playing the system, and taking out as much as you possibly can.

The benefits system is for people in genuine need- not for people who have 2/3 properties and 60k salary.

NeilCr

Given her £8k and the flat in Moscow she isn't going to get UC.

She won't get the housing element, if and when she qualifies, as she won't be paying rent because you are buying her a house - or is it your intention for her to pay you rent? You mentioned her paying rent in #3

Do you know, for sure, that she is in a UC area?

A_Nice_Englishman

The_Maestro wrote: »

The share of time with the children will be fairly equal so the 'standard enjoyed before the marriage' is not that relevant. The arrangement may be 70-80% in favour of the non-breadwinner in cases where the breadwinner is one of these people who doesn't want to play an equal part in bringing up the children, but that does not apply to our situation, and:

1. We are not going to court
2. If we did go to court because, e.g. my wife demanded 100% residence for the children with her, there would be a court battle and she would get 70% of a much reduced amount, maybe even less than the original 50%. Only really rich people would consider this sensible..
3. If we did go to court, the judge could order anything, and would probably order spousal maintenance which doesn't make her any better off and me much worse off.

Given a choice:

A) Me buy a house which is hers forever and can be passed down to the children, or
Me pay her a monthly income which will just go on rent and living expenses

Given that both are legal and possible, If anyone really thinks they would do then I think they should either be canonised as a saint or get their head tested!

A year ago you didn't think you'd be in a position to look after the children at all, let alone play an equal part in bringing them up.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72839791#Comment_72839791