Divorce and Mortgage in England

Exodi

It's obvious there's a lot of emotion behind this (as respectfully some of the questions seem quite spiteful in nature, which I can understand given the non molestation order), but it's not reasonable to expect the ex to continue paying the full mortgage on a house he doesn't live and full rent on his own place until the child is 18+. It's even more unreasonable when you consider that this couple has two teenage children between them and one is living with the ex (who is seemingly expected to be able to work more than your friend). Of course it may be that the younger child has a disability or some other reason that requires the mum to work less, but if not you can certainly expect the question to be raised at some point.

The financial settlement includes equity, but also savings, assets, pensions, etc (I appreciate you are already aware of this). It's common that people don't like to see their hard earned pension raided, so depending on values (for example) if the pension was the same value as the equity in the house, it could be that your friend could get away with keeping all the equity in the house (in lieu of a claim to his pension). However, even if this was the case, there would still be an expectation that she takes the £150k equity and uses it to move to a more appropriate and affordable accommodation - again, it's not realistic or reasonable to just plan on her ex to continue paying for everything.

TBagpuss

A court has the power to ordera sale - the court also gets to determine how the assets will be divided. They take into account the parties respective needs, and resources, and the needs ofany minor childnre, so if the house is sold she may well be entitled to have more than 50% of the equity, as it's likely that he will have much higher mortgage capacity, so for each of them to rehouse, she will need a larger deposite.

She will need to look at what she can do to try to improve her own fincial positon in the short to medium term - for example, check she is claiming nay benefits she is entited to, look at whether the benefit position will change if the hosue is sold, consider what cpacity sh has to try to incresae her earnign. 

It would be sensible for her to talk to a morggage advisor to find pout her borrowing capacity, bearing in mind tnt thinsg like Universal Credit, and Child SUpport, may be taken into account as income as well as her earnings.

She may also want to look into shared ownrship properties - while they have pros and cons, one potnetial 'pro' is that she might be able to buy a % of the property with a small, or no, mortage, and pay rent on the rest. If she gets UC then she may potentially qualify for help with the rent element so she might findit a practica loption. And if  sh is able to progress her career and ear more in future she would have the option of buying more of the preoprrty (staircasing) or selling and moving to a move conventionally owned property in future.

All assets, so things like savings and pensiosn even if they are in her husbands sole name, are relevant and get taken into account. 

There is no presumption for childnre to remain in the family home but the needs of any childnen are a high priorty so a court will consider the timing of any sale, the split of the capital and the timing fo auch as split with that in mind. 

AskAsk

Deenport said:

gwynlas said:

Yes in the case of divorce husband could ask for home to be sold especially as he is paying both mortgage and rent.
Each would have half of equity despite mortgage being based on his salary,
They could negotiate financial settlement, this would involve all assets, house savings and pension provision.

Thank you for your answer. Just to confirm, if husband forces sale of property, mum and 13yo child will have to try and find somewhere else to live using only her half of the equity after remaining mortgage is paid off, approximately £75k. No savings to speak of, small car, and his  pension. I had hoped that due to child being the youngest and choosing to live with mum, that courts could prevent sale of home until child reaches 18? There has been years of emotional and financial abuse, coercive behaviour hence the non molestation order. Would any of this be considered? 

the court will not prevent the sale of the property unless there is an absolute need for the child to remain and the husband has enough money to live indepently without the need to sell the house.

it is an unfortunate effect of divorce, the parties are going to be worse off financially.

the mother and child can move into rented accomodation or a smaller property, like a flat if the family home is a house for example, or they can move to a cheaper area than where they are now.

it will all be settled through the divorce settlement.

Exodi

TBagpuss said:

A court has the power to order a sale - the court also gets to determine how the assets will be divided. They take into account the parties respective needs, and resources, and the needs of any minor children, so if the house is sold she may well be entitled to have more than 50% of the equity, as it's likely that he will have much higher mortgage capacity, so for each of them to rehouse, she will need a larger deposit.

Is this true? That doesn't feel very fair? I could understand if it was decided that the party with lower mortgage capacity should be awarded more equity (and a lower share of the pension, for example) to allow them to appropriately rehouse, or to award them a slightly higher overall split based on who is expected to look after the children (which might not be the case here as they are both responsible for one teenage child) but I wouldn't think it's fair to say, for example, the ex-wife should get most of the equity (with nothing sacrificed to offset it), because she has low borrowing ability, whereas the ex-husband  should get very little equity, because he can just borrow it instead?

VyEu

Exodi said:

TBagpuss said:

A court has the power to order a sale - the court also gets to determine how the assets will be divided. They take into account the parties respective needs, and resources, and the needs of any minor children, so if the house is sold she may well be entitled to have more than 50% of the equity, as it's likely that he will have much higher mortgage capacity, so for each of them to rehouse, she will need a larger deposit.

Is this true? That doesn't feel very fair? I could understand if it was decided that the party with lower mortgage capacity should be awarded more equity (and a lower share of the pension, for example) to allow them to appropriately rehouse, or to award them a slightly higher overall split based on who is expected to look after the children (which might not be the case here as they are both responsible for one teenage child) but I wouldn't think it's fair to say, for example, the ex-wife should get most of the equity (with nothing sacrificed to offset it), because she has low borrowing ability, whereas the ex-husband  should get very little equity, because he can just borrow it instead?

You just said you thought it was fair for them to get more to enable them to rehouse...their borrowing capacity (which you just said was 'unfair' to consider) is obviously a part of that calculation.

The alternative to what you're saying is that he gets more of the house than he needs to meet his housing needs (considering borrowing capacity) but then leaves ex unable to meet her housing needs at all. That's not fair is it. One to get a surplus and the other to be unable to house themselves adequately

Deenport

Exodi said:

It's obvious there's a lot of emotion behind this (as respectfully some of the questions seem quite spiteful in nature, which I can understand given the non molestation order), but it's not reasonable to expect the ex to continue paying the full mortgage on a house he doesn't live and full rent on his own place until the child is 18+. It's even more unreasonable when you consider that this couple has two teenage children between them and one is living with the ex (who is seemingly expected to be able to work more than your friend). Of course it may be that the younger child has a disability or some other reason that requires the mum to work less, but if not you can certainly expect the question to be raised at some point.

The financial settlement includes equity, but also savings, assets, pensions, etc (I appreciate you are already aware of this). It's common that people don't like to see their hard earned pension raided, so depending on values (for example) if the pension was the same value as the equity in the house, it could be that your friend could get away with keeping all the equity in the house (in lieu of a claim to his pension). However, even if this was the case, there would still be an expectation that she takes the £150k equity and uses it to move to a more appropriate and affordable accommodation - again, it's not realistic or reasonable to just plan on her ex to continue paying for everything.

Thank you for your comments and advice. Yes, there is certainly a level of “getting one over” the ex husband. Pain and worry exasperating everything. I’m trying to advise the best outcome for her and the children, but in a gentle way. I agree that selling up, splitting fairly and moving on is best option especially for the children. But also keeping in mind that ex husband has access to information and a good solicitor, and my friend is relying my advice ( with little knowledge) as her legal aid does not stretch to finances as she potentially has equity in the property. Such a minefield