Splitting marital home stress

TBagpuss

monty-doggy said:

saveallmymoney said:

If this solicitor hasn't realised that she has remarried and therefore can't make a claim for a financial order he isn't any good, get another one.

Would that mean she can’t take any of my 50%?

I think the solicitor was aware she’s re married as we mentioned her husband wants to stake a claim as he’s lived there too! (She said he has no chance)
she said that they will have to declare their financial information and so will I. Neither of them ‘work’ but both work cash in hand so on paper they can lie about their situation. Both claim benefits and I have always worked, it seems the solicitor was suggesting that because they don’t work their housing need is greater than mine as I have more earnings! Shocking! 

No, it wouldn't. It simply means that she couldn't start the court proceedings. Once they are started she can still claim, and it sounds as though you need to take it to court in order to get things resolved.

A court looks at the full picture, so they are entitled to take into account not only income but also earning capacity - if she has no disabilities then it's not unreasonable to suggest that she has the capacity to work full time,  they can also take into account that she is married so they are potentially a two income family. 

The court is also entitled to consider the length of your marriage and any subsequent delays and the reasons for them . 

monty-doggy

TBagpuss said:

monty-doggy said:

saveallmymoney said:

If this solicitor hasn't realised that she has remarried and therefore can't make a claim for a financial order he isn't any good, get another one.

Would that mean she can’t take any of my 50%?

I think the solicitor was aware she’s re married as we mentioned her husband wants to stake a claim as he’s lived there too! (She said he has no chance)
she said that they will have to declare their financial information and so will I. Neither of them ‘work’ but both work cash in hand so on paper they can lie about their situation. Both claim benefits and I have always worked, it seems the solicitor was suggesting that because they don’t work their housing need is greater than mine as I have more earnings! Shocking! 

No, it wouldn't. It simply means that she couldn't start the court proceedings. Once they are started she can still claim, and it sounds as though you need to take it to court in order to get things resolved.

A court looks at the full picture, so they are entitled to take into account not only income but also earning capacity - if she has no disabilities then it's not unreasonable to suggest that she has the capacity to work full time,  they can also take into account that she is married so they are potentially a two income family. 

The court is also entitled to consider the length of your marriage and any subsequent delays and the reasons for them . 

Thank you, so if she can’t start proceedings but wants to sell, would that mean it would be split 50/50 automatically? As in her solicitor would have to distribute it 50/50 as I don’t want to go to the expense of a court case of I can avoid it 

monty-doggy

tightauldgit said:

monty-doggy said:

To be honest I feel sick to the stomach that it was suggested I’m in a better position because I work and pay my taxes. 

Working doesn’t pay does it?! 

You ARE in a better position because you work. Which is kind of because working pays.

But she can never work a day in her life (by choice) claim benefits and then potentially end up with a mortgage free house? While I have had to meet my own housing costs plus pay maintenance for my children (rightly) and I cannot afford a mortgage or save for a deposit?! How is that in a better off position? I don’t have a huge wage there’s nothing left after paying bills and maintenance. 

monty-doggy

tightauldgit said:

monty-doggy said:

saveallmymoney said:

If this solicitor hasn't realised that she has remarried and therefore can't make a claim for a financial order he isn't any good, get another one.

Would that mean she can’t take any of my 50%?

It means she can't file for any financial order as any application would be dismissed by the court. It doesn't stop you filing for a financial order if you believe it would be the right thing to do, but she can't.  

Check with you solicitor what happens when a property is sold and there is no financial order relating to the sharing of proceeds - but if it's jointly owned and both names are on the title then I can only imagine that proceeds would be split 50/50. If only your name or her name was on the title you/they would get it all I think. 

Normally its recommended to sort out your finances before remarrying for that reason.

This would be the ideal scenario that it’s just paid 50/50
ive never remarried and it was her who was insisting a quick diy divorce. So if it goes that way I’ll be better off. 

tightauldgit

monty-doggy said:

tightauldgit said:

monty-doggy said:

To be honest I feel sick to the stomach that it was suggested I’m in a better position because I work and pay my taxes. 

Working doesn’t pay does it?! 

You ARE in a better position because you work. Which is kind of because working pays.

But she can never work a day in her life (by choice) claim benefits and then potentially end up with a mortgage free house? While I have had to meet my own housing costs plus pay maintenance for my children (rightly) and I cannot afford a mortgage or save for a deposit?! How is that in a better off position? I don’t have a huge wage there’s nothing left after paying bills and maintenance. 

As far as I can tell from your posts 1) You are in a better off position than her 2) She doesn't have a mortgage free house -its being repossessed by the bank 3) it was your choice at the time to walk away and let her occupy the house and wait 16 years to do anything about it. 

monty-doggy

tightauldgit said:

monty-doggy said:

tightauldgit said:

monty-doggy said:

To be honest I feel sick to the stomach that it was suggested I’m in a better position because I work and pay my taxes. 

Working doesn’t pay does it?! 

You ARE in a better position because you work. Which is kind of because working pays.

But she can never work a day in her life (by choice) claim benefits and then potentially end up with a mortgage free house? While I have had to meet my own housing costs plus pay maintenance for my children (rightly) and I cannot afford a mortgage or save for a deposit?! How is that in a better off position? I don’t have a huge wage there’s nothing left after paying bills and maintenance. 

As far as I can tell from your posts 1) You are in a better off position than her 2) She doesn't have a mortgage free house -its being repossessed by the bank 3) it was your choice at the time to walk away and let her occupy the house and wait 16 years to do anything about it. 

I waited because my children needed a home how is that wrong?
its being repossessed because she hasn’t paid the interest only payments, despite it only being £230 for over 4 years. She and her husband (who works self employed) have had days out, holidays, new cars, eat our most weeks etc while I’ve not done any of that because there’s not much left once I’ve paid maintenance and my own housing costs. I think you’re not seeing the true picture here. She’s chosen to put herself in this position and now wants to buy a house outright with the equity so she is both rent and mortgage free while i am STILL stuck renting and can’t even do much as get a mobile phone on credit because she’s defaulted so many times on the mortgage. Even if I wanted to force a sale previously I have never had the money to do so. 

tightauldgit

monty-doggy said:

tightauldgit said:

monty-doggy said:

tightauldgit said:

monty-doggy said:

To be honest I feel sick to the stomach that it was suggested I’m in a better position because I work and pay my taxes. 

Working doesn’t pay does it?! 

You ARE in a better position because you work. Which is kind of because working pays.

But she can never work a day in her life (by choice) claim benefits and then potentially end up with a mortgage free house? While I have had to meet my own housing costs plus pay maintenance for my children (rightly) and I cannot afford a mortgage or save for a deposit?! How is that in a better off position? I don’t have a huge wage there’s nothing left after paying bills and maintenance. 

As far as I can tell from your posts 1) You are in a better off position than her 2) She doesn't have a mortgage free house -its being repossessed by the bank 3) it was your choice at the time to walk away and let her occupy the house and wait 16 years to do anything about it. 

I waited because my children needed a home how is that wrong?
its being repossessed because she hasn’t paid the interest only payments, despite it only being £230 for over 4 years. She and her husband (who works self employed) have had days out, holidays, new cars, eat our most weeks etc while I’ve not done any of that because there’s not much left once I’ve paid maintenance and my own housing costs. I think you’re not seeing the true picture here. She’s chosen to put herself in this position and now wants to buy a house outright with the equity so she is both rent and mortgage free while i am STILL stuck renting and can’t even do much as get a mobile phone on credit because she’s defaulted so many times on the mortgage. Even if I wanted to force a sale previously I have never had the money to do so. 

I think you are getting confused between what she wants and what she is actually going to get and is entitled to. She won't get 100% of the equity. She'll either get half (or at best a little more) or she'll get the house repossessed and some fraction of it if anything. 

She made her life choices and you made yours. And whether you want to admit it or not you enabled her choices for 16 years. 

You could have filed for a financial order at any point in the last 16 years. With a one year marriage you would probably have left the relationship a lot better off. And if you wanted to gift her something or let her have the house or whatever you could have. Or you could have documented a formal agreement on the equity when you reached this point so you wouldn't have had this issue now. 

If I learned anything from my divorce it's that you need to let the bitterness go and focus on the facts on the matter at hand. So far we've determined that she can't file for a financial order so now the onus is on you to decide if you want to file for one or what will happen to the equity if there is no agreement. A solicitor will be able to tell you that. 

If it does go to court then they are going to start at a 50/50 split - and then listen to arguments why it should be any different. She will say that she needs a house for her family and her kids etc etc and you will point out that her husband is employed, she can work full-time since the kids are (presumably) grown, or that the kids are old enough to look after themself. You'll point out that she's chosen not to pay the mortgage while spending on other things which has created arrears. And a judge will make a decision. 

_Penny_Dreadful

monty-doggy said:

tightauldgit said:

monty-doggy said:

To be honest I feel sick to the stomach that it was suggested I’m in a better position because I work and pay my taxes. 

Working doesn’t pay does it?! 

You ARE in a better position because you work. Which is kind of because working pays.

But she can never work a day in her life (by choice) claim benefits and then potentially end up with a mortgage free house? While I have had to meet my own housing costs plus pay maintenance for my children (rightly) and I cannot afford a mortgage or save for a deposit?! How is that in a better off position? I don’t have a huge wage there’s nothing left after paying bills and maintenance. 

I don’t know which benefits she’s receiving but if they’re solely related to having children then eventually the tap will be turned off. She’s also not going to end up with a mortgage free house because the mortgage lender is about repossess it. Even if she kept up with the mortgage payments it’s an interest only mortgage and presumably there’s no vehicle in place to repay the capital so she was never going to wind up owning this property forever. 

I agree with @tightauldgit, you could have helped yourself by getting the financial order sorted out when you first got divorced but you didn’t, you’ve left it for 16 years. There’s no point wailing about your perceived unfairness of the situation. Focus on what is in your control. 

TBagpuss

monty-doggy said:

TBagpuss said:

monty-doggy said:

saveallmymoney said:

If this solicitor hasn't realised that she has remarried and therefore can't make a claim for a financial order he isn't any good, get another one.

Would that mean she can’t take any of my 50%?

I think the solicitor was aware she’s re married as we mentioned her husband wants to stake a claim as he’s lived there too! (She said he has no chance)
she said that they will have to declare their financial information and so will I. Neither of them ‘work’ but both work cash in hand so on paper they can lie about their situation. Both claim benefits and I have always worked, it seems the solicitor was suggesting that because they don’t work their housing need is greater than mine as I have more earnings! Shocking! 

No, it wouldn't. It simply means that she couldn't start the court proceedings. Once they are started she can still claim, and it sounds as though you need to take it to court in order to get things resolved.

A court looks at the full picture, so they are entitled to take into account not only income but also earning capacity - if she has no disabilities then it's not unreasonable to suggest that she has the capacity to work full time,  they can also take into account that she is married so they are potentially a two income family. 

The court is also entitled to consider the length of your marriage and any subsequent delays and the reasons for them . 

Thank you, so if she can’t start proceedings but wants to sell, would that mean it would be split 50/50 automatically? As in her solicitor would have to distribute it 50/50 as I don’t want to go to the expense of a court case of I can avoid it 

No, the solicitor would not be able to distribute the funds unless they had clear instructions from you both as joint owners as to how they were to be split. And there are other bits of legislation under which she could make a claim if need be. 

kazwookie

Is the husband paying rent to be in the house you own 50/50?