Divorce and assets split: where do I stand?

Exodi

RobertF82 said:

gizmo111 said:

RobertF82 said:

tightauldgit said:

I had a reasonably similar situation to you in that my ex was stay at home and I worked - the court won't care (and I'm not saying they should) the starting point is 50/50. The past is largely irrelevant in divorce proceedings - the court looks at what you have now and what your needs are. 

The 50/50 thing works both ways - so if she was saving her wages and has a savings account you are potentially entitled to half of it. If she bought a car or other assets with the money ditto. 

With regards spousal maintenance I think it's not really a common thing nowadays but the court will look at what she needs, what her earning capacity is, etc and they may decide some spousal maintenance is appropriate. Or may not. If she's getting a decent lump sum as a settlement then I think it's not likely she would get maintenance.

With regards the house, there's no reason a court would force a sale if you are offering to buy her out and she's no worse off as a result. Cost of sales should be factored into your valuation of equity so she shouldn't be better off either, technically. 

Who paid for what, did what, earned what, etc during the marriage is largely irrelevant as it's all considered to be a shared within the marriage and it makes no odds who has their name on the paperwork. 

From my experience solicitors filled my ex-wife's head with magic about what she could get in court and she ended up worse off than if she had just negotiated a settlement so yes I wouldn't be surprised if the solicitors are exaggerating what she might get, she may also only be hearing what she wants to hear from them. It may be a negotiating tactic. 

Have you filled out the Form Es as part of mediation? If you have a decent calculation of the asset pot, split it 50/50 and work on that basis. Unless you have extenuating circumstances I think it's unlikely you'll get anything better than that as an outcome.  

With regards to the house, depending on how much the court finds appropriate to give her I may or may not be able to buy her out via savings and additional lending. As you said, in case of a sale she will be much worse off because of a hefty mortgage early repayment fee and estate agent fee. These alone I estimate to be in the 25-30k region so she'd be 15k worse off.

Add lawyers' fees and we'd both end up with a bunch less money. My lawyer charges £300+ an hour and her lawyer is just as expensive so yeah, go figure how much legal fees are going to be after a lengthy process.

FYI, we had our last mediation session yesterday afternoon. Mediation has officially failed as she unilaterally decided that she doesn't want to continue with the mediation and asked to just speak to her lawyers. We both gave the mediator Form E with extensive list of our assets but we never discussed it with him as, as I said, the mediation was cut short. Unilaterally. By her.

If your plan is to remortgage and her name to be removed probably best to check out the options for the ERC, as you may end up paying it. 

As far as my mortgage broker told me, I won't be paying ERC because I wouldn't be paying off the mortgage...the mortgage stays.

I bought my ex out last year.

If you are simply taking her name off the mortgage (assuming she is in agreement and you meet affordability), lenders usually do this at a small charge (Nationwide for example charge a £125 change of parties administration fee).

If there is additional borrowing required, you can take out something called a further advance (though lenders call this different things, Nationwide call it 'Borrow More'), which effectively acts as a second mortgage with its own interest rate and terms.

Seperate to the mortgage, you would need to complete a TR1 form stating the transfer of equity from her to you (which she will need to sign and probably wants to be done through a solicitor - around £1k).

In either case, you wouldn't need to pay ERC or entirely remortgage the property.

RobertF82

Exodi said:

RobertF82 said:

gizmo111 said:

RobertF82 said:

tightauldgit said:

I had a reasonably similar situation to you in that my ex was stay at home and I worked - the court won't care (and I'm not saying they should) the starting point is 50/50. The past is largely irrelevant in divorce proceedings - the court looks at what you have now and what your needs are. 

The 50/50 thing works both ways - so if she was saving her wages and has a savings account you are potentially entitled to half of it. If she bought a car or other assets with the money ditto. 

With regards spousal maintenance I think it's not really a common thing nowadays but the court will look at what she needs, what her earning capacity is, etc and they may decide some spousal maintenance is appropriate. Or may not. If she's getting a decent lump sum as a settlement then I think it's not likely she would get maintenance.

With regards the house, there's no reason a court would force a sale if you are offering to buy her out and she's no worse off as a result. Cost of sales should be factored into your valuation of equity so she shouldn't be better off either, technically. 

Who paid for what, did what, earned what, etc during the marriage is largely irrelevant as it's all considered to be a shared within the marriage and it makes no odds who has their name on the paperwork. 

From my experience solicitors filled my ex-wife's head with magic about what she could get in court and she ended up worse off than if she had just negotiated a settlement so yes I wouldn't be surprised if the solicitors are exaggerating what she might get, she may also only be hearing what she wants to hear from them. It may be a negotiating tactic. 

Have you filled out the Form Es as part of mediation? If you have a decent calculation of the asset pot, split it 50/50 and work on that basis. Unless you have extenuating circumstances I think it's unlikely you'll get anything better than that as an outcome.  

With regards to the house, depending on how much the court finds appropriate to give her I may or may not be able to buy her out via savings and additional lending. As you said, in case of a sale she will be much worse off because of a hefty mortgage early repayment fee and estate agent fee. These alone I estimate to be in the 25-30k region so she'd be 15k worse off.

Add lawyers' fees and we'd both end up with a bunch less money. My lawyer charges £300+ an hour and her lawyer is just as expensive so yeah, go figure how much legal fees are going to be after a lengthy process.

FYI, we had our last mediation session yesterday afternoon. Mediation has officially failed as she unilaterally decided that she doesn't want to continue with the mediation and asked to just speak to her lawyers. We both gave the mediator Form E with extensive list of our assets but we never discussed it with him as, as I said, the mediation was cut short. Unilaterally. By her.

If your plan is to remortgage and her name to be removed probably best to check out the options for the ERC, as you may end up paying it. 

As far as my mortgage broker told me, I won't be paying ERC because I wouldn't be paying off the mortgage...the mortgage stays.

I bought my ex out last year.

If you are simply taking her name off the mortgage (assuming she is in agreement and you meet affordability), lenders usually do this at a small charge (Nationwide for example charge a £125 change of parties administration fee).

If there is additional borrowing required, you can take out something called a further advance (though lenders call this different things, Nationwide call it 'Borrow More'), which effectively acts as a second mortgage with its own interest rate and terms.

Seperate to the mortgage, you would need to complete a TR1 form stating the transfer of equity from her to you (which she will need to sign and probably wants to be done through a solicitor - around £1k).

In either case, you wouldn't need to pay ERC or entirely remortgage the property.

Yes, exactly this.

All this was said to me by the broker.

tooldle

With the house is the location the issue, rather than the value your soon to be ex will achieve? 
Is the house maybe within a stone's throw of her close family members and she simply wants to avoid any accidental contact. There might be some value in trying to understand her reasoning.

RobertF82

tooldle said:

With the house is the location the issue, rather than the value your soon to be ex will achieve? 
Is the house maybe within a stone's throw of her close family members and she simply wants to avoid any accidental contact. There might be some value in trying to understand her reasoning.

No, neither of our parents live nearby so the location is not relevant. Only thing is the house is close to our son's school, which is one of the main reasons I want to keep the house, so his life won't be disrupted more than necessary.

I've got no idea what her reasoning is. So far I have 2 theories on why she wants to sell the house:

• she's petty so she'll try to push for the exact opposite of what I want, just out of spite
• her lawyer convinced her selling the house is a good idea purely because this would translate for higher legal fees and more money in the lawyer's pocket

DE_612183

RobertF82 said:

tooldle said:

With the house is the location the issue, rather than the value your soon to be ex will achieve? 
Is the house maybe within a stone's throw of her close family members and she simply wants to avoid any accidental contact. There might be some value in trying to understand her reasoning.

No, neither of our parents live nearby so the location is not relevant. Only thing is the house is close to our son's school, which is one of the main reasons I want to keep the house, so his life won't be disrupted more than necessary.

I've got no idea what her reasoning is. So far I have 2 theories on why she wants to sell the house:

• she's petty so she'll try to push for the exact opposite of what I want, just out of spite
• her lawyer convinced her selling the house is a good idea purely because this would translate for higher legal fees and more money in the lawyer's pocket

Perhaps she thinks that if you buy her out you will rip her off, whereas if it's a sale there can be no fear of that - not saying you would could just be how she thinks - have you got a solicitor? perhaps the solicitors can talk and get the result you want?

DE_612183

interesting other thread.....

Helping a friend - Ex wants to buy her out — MoneySavingExpert Forum

tightauldgit

RobertF82 said:

tightauldgit said:

I had a reasonably similar situation to you in that my ex was stay at home and I worked - the court won't care (and I'm not saying they should) the starting point is 50/50. The past is largely irrelevant in divorce proceedings - the court looks at what you have now and what your needs are. 

The 50/50 thing works both ways - so if she was saving her wages and has a savings account you are potentially entitled to half of it. If she bought a car or other assets with the money ditto. 

With regards spousal maintenance I think it's not really a common thing nowadays but the court will look at what she needs, what her earning capacity is, etc and they may decide some spousal maintenance is appropriate. Or may not. If she's getting a decent lump sum as a settlement then I think it's not likely she would get maintenance.

With regards the house, there's no reason a court would force a sale if you are offering to buy her out and she's no worse off as a result. Cost of sales should be factored into your valuation of equity so she shouldn't be better off either, technically. 

Who paid for what, did what, earned what, etc during the marriage is largely irrelevant as it's all considered to be a shared within the marriage and it makes no odds who has their name on the paperwork. 

From my experience solicitors filled my ex-wife's head with magic about what she could get in court and she ended up worse off than if she had just negotiated a settlement so yes I wouldn't be surprised if the solicitors are exaggerating what she might get, she may also only be hearing what she wants to hear from them. It may be a negotiating tactic. 

Have you filled out the Form Es as part of mediation? If you have a decent calculation of the asset pot, split it 50/50 and work on that basis. Unless you have extenuating circumstances I think it's unlikely you'll get anything better than that as an outcome.  

With regards to the house, depending on how much the court finds appropriate to give her I may or may not be able to buy her out via savings and additional lending. As you said, in case of a sale she will be much worse off because of a hefty mortgage early repayment fee and estate agent fee. These alone I estimate to be in the 25-30k region so she'd be 15k worse off.

Add lawyers' fees and we'd both end up with a bunch less money. My lawyer charges £300+ an hour and her lawyer is just as expensive so yeah, go figure how much legal fees are going to be after a lengthy process.

FYI, we had our last mediation session yesterday afternoon. Mediation has officially failed as she unilaterally decided that she doesn't want to continue with the mediation and asked to just speak to her lawyers. We both gave the mediator Form E with extensive list of our assets but we never discussed it with him as, as I said, the mediation was cut short. Unilaterally. By her.

With regards the house the equity calculation done for the Form E/court should factor in the early repayment fees, agents fees, legal fees etc regardless and split the remainder. There will be haggling over valuations anyway so 5/10k here and there might well be added or subtracted anyway but nobody should be better or worse off either way between selling or buying out. Estimate that she would get 50% of the remaining equity - can you afford to buy her out?

My ex refused mediation completely for unspecified reasons. 

tightauldgit

Exodi said:

RobertF82 said:

gizmo111 said:

RobertF82 said:

tightauldgit said:

I had a reasonably similar situation to you in that my ex was stay at home and I worked - the court won't care (and I'm not saying they should) the starting point is 50/50. The past is largely irrelevant in divorce proceedings - the court looks at what you have now and what your needs are. 

The 50/50 thing works both ways - so if she was saving her wages and has a savings account you are potentially entitled to half of it. If she bought a car or other assets with the money ditto. 

With regards spousal maintenance I think it's not really a common thing nowadays but the court will look at what she needs, what her earning capacity is, etc and they may decide some spousal maintenance is appropriate. Or may not. If she's getting a decent lump sum as a settlement then I think it's not likely she would get maintenance.

With regards the house, there's no reason a court would force a sale if you are offering to buy her out and she's no worse off as a result. Cost of sales should be factored into your valuation of equity so she shouldn't be better off either, technically. 

Who paid for what, did what, earned what, etc during the marriage is largely irrelevant as it's all considered to be a shared within the marriage and it makes no odds who has their name on the paperwork. 

From my experience solicitors filled my ex-wife's head with magic about what she could get in court and she ended up worse off than if she had just negotiated a settlement so yes I wouldn't be surprised if the solicitors are exaggerating what she might get, she may also only be hearing what she wants to hear from them. It may be a negotiating tactic. 

Have you filled out the Form Es as part of mediation? If you have a decent calculation of the asset pot, split it 50/50 and work on that basis. Unless you have extenuating circumstances I think it's unlikely you'll get anything better than that as an outcome.  

With regards to the house, depending on how much the court finds appropriate to give her I may or may not be able to buy her out via savings and additional lending. As you said, in case of a sale she will be much worse off because of a hefty mortgage early repayment fee and estate agent fee. These alone I estimate to be in the 25-30k region so she'd be 15k worse off.

Add lawyers' fees and we'd both end up with a bunch less money. My lawyer charges £300+ an hour and her lawyer is just as expensive so yeah, go figure how much legal fees are going to be after a lengthy process.

FYI, we had our last mediation session yesterday afternoon. Mediation has officially failed as she unilaterally decided that she doesn't want to continue with the mediation and asked to just speak to her lawyers. We both gave the mediator Form E with extensive list of our assets but we never discussed it with him as, as I said, the mediation was cut short. Unilaterally. By her.

If your plan is to remortgage and her name to be removed probably best to check out the options for the ERC, as you may end up paying it. 

As far as my mortgage broker told me, I won't be paying ERC because I wouldn't be paying off the mortgage...the mortgage stays.

I bought my ex out last year.

If you are simply taking her name off the mortgage (assuming she is in agreement and you meet affordability), lenders usually do this at a small charge (Nationwide for example charge a £125 change of parties administration fee).

If there is additional borrowing required, you can take out something called a further advance (though lenders call this different things, Nationwide call it 'Borrow More'), which effectively acts as a second mortgage with its own interest rate and terms.

Seperate to the mortgage, you would need to complete a TR1 form stating the transfer of equity from her to you (which she will need to sign and probably wants to be done through a solicitor - around £1k).

In either case, you wouldn't need to pay ERC or entirely remortgage the property.

RobertF82 said:

gizmo111 said:

RobertF82 said:

tightauldgit said:

I had a reasonably similar situation to you in that my ex was stay at home and I worked - the court won't care (and I'm not saying they should) the starting point is 50/50. The past is largely irrelevant in divorce proceedings - the court looks at what you have now and what your needs are. 

The 50/50 thing works both ways - so if she was saving her wages and has a savings account you are potentially entitled to half of it. If she bought a car or other assets with the money ditto. 

With regards spousal maintenance I think it's not really a common thing nowadays but the court will look at what she needs, what her earning capacity is, etc and they may decide some spousal maintenance is appropriate. Or may not. If she's getting a decent lump sum as a settlement then I think it's not likely she would get maintenance.

With regards the house, there's no reason a court would force a sale if you are offering to buy her out and she's no worse off as a result. Cost of sales should be factored into your valuation of equity so she shouldn't be better off either, technically. 

Who paid for what, did what, earned what, etc during the marriage is largely irrelevant as it's all considered to be a shared within the marriage and it makes no odds who has their name on the paperwork. 

From my experience solicitors filled my ex-wife's head with magic about what she could get in court and she ended up worse off than if she had just negotiated a settlement so yes I wouldn't be surprised if the solicitors are exaggerating what she might get, she may also only be hearing what she wants to hear from them. It may be a negotiating tactic. 

Have you filled out the Form Es as part of mediation? If you have a decent calculation of the asset pot, split it 50/50 and work on that basis. Unless you have extenuating circumstances I think it's unlikely you'll get anything better than that as an outcome.  

With regards to the house, depending on how much the court finds appropriate to give her I may or may not be able to buy her out via savings and additional lending. As you said, in case of a sale she will be much worse off because of a hefty mortgage early repayment fee and estate agent fee. These alone I estimate to be in the 25-30k region so she'd be 15k worse off.

Add lawyers' fees and we'd both end up with a bunch less money. My lawyer charges £300+ an hour and her lawyer is just as expensive so yeah, go figure how much legal fees are going to be after a lengthy process.

FYI, we had our last mediation session yesterday afternoon. Mediation has officially failed as she unilaterally decided that she doesn't want to continue with the mediation and asked to just speak to her lawyers. We both gave the mediator Form E with extensive list of our assets but we never discussed it with him as, as I said, the mediation was cut short. Unilaterally. By her.

If your plan is to remortgage and her name to be removed probably best to check out the options for the ERC, as you may end up paying it. 

As far as my mortgage broker told me, I won't be paying ERC because I wouldn't be paying off the mortgage...the mortgage stays.

If the mortgage is in your sole name it's easy enough. If it's a joint mortgage then lenders (at least mine) don't take someone's name off the mortgage as they have to re-run affordability checks etc and consider it a new application. 

tightauldgit

RobertF82 said:

tooldle said:

With the house is the location the issue, rather than the value your soon to be ex will achieve? 
Is the house maybe within a stone's throw of her close family members and she simply wants to avoid any accidental contact. There might be some value in trying to understand her reasoning.

No, neither of our parents live nearby so the location is not relevant. Only thing is the house is close to our son's school, which is one of the main reasons I want to keep the house, so his life won't be disrupted more than necessary.

I've got no idea what her reasoning is. So far I have 2 theories on why she wants to sell the house:

• she's petty so she'll try to push for the exact opposite of what I want, just out of spite
• her lawyer convinced her selling the house is a good idea purely because this would translate for higher legal fees and more money in the lawyer's pocket

Certainly just being awkward is one possible reason. The other things may be that she thinks the valuations are too low and that if you sell it you will get more. Or she may be thinking that if you keep the house you will have an advantage in child custody negotiations? She may also be thinking that if its sold then she can argue for a bigger share of the pot than if she's limited by your ability to buy her out. 

Part of the difficulty of divorce is that you can't force the other party to be reasonable. Mine for example wanted me to sell the house and give her 100% of the proceeds - despite the fact she had moved in with a new man and it would have left me homeless! 

[Deleted User]

Could the reason for wanting the sale also be purely emotional? She may be struggling with the idea of you staying in the family home or thinking that the children may want to spend more time there because it is their 'home' and familiar etc. Perhaps she wants a fresh start across the board and not like she's looking backwards?