Husband refusing to leave marital home - help

Any advice gratefully received: here is the scenario. We split 5 months ago. We have 2 kids. He had the primary salary. House is in negative equity. He has now informed me that he is moving back in. I want to sell house and move on. Happy to take the hit on the £. He is also applying to court for full custody - which he can''t reasonably do and hold down job, but he is telling kids how wonderful it would be when they are with him etc etc. They are twins of 10. He is refusing to sell house. Options are i move out - with kids; i move out without kids; he moves out (again). I have offered generous contact but he refuses to sign up to any access agreement. It seems to me he wants to benefit from me being a glorified babysitter when it suits him whilst he comes and goes. I can''t contemplate being under the same roof as him. How do i go about forcing him to get out of the home and my personal life (he is a complete control freak) without compromising my application for custody. He says one thing and does another - and whilst he is bringing in the money he can afford the legal costs whereas i can''t, The situation is becoming intolerable and i just can''t see a way forward without significant legal bills. As i said - any suggestions would be most welcome. Thank you

Well, let''s try and put the present situation to one side for the time being and let us look at the medium term, when the divorce is through, and you are no longer married.
The House is in negative equity. There is nothing to stop you, or him, living in a house with negative equity - if you can afford the repayments. But you have no job, so would you have the resources to live there, if you were given the right to do so by a Court, to the exclusion of your husband ?
Because if you can''t afford to live there, with the aid of such resources as you have or might acquire, which would include spousal/child maintenance, tax credits, etc etc. then the Court would not be likely to '' award '' you the house or the right to live there. In that case the answer would be for you to rent, when housing benefit can come into the picture.
Your husband could, in these circumstances, be '' awarded '' the house outright because in many respects it is a liability.
You cannot exclude your husband in normal circumstances because he is a joint owner, and only the Court can do that. However, I''d say that it is unlikely that there would be grounds on which the Court could exclude him.
I think the chances are that you would end up as the primary carer. You would be entitled to child support, up to 20% of his net income, as a minimum. On top of this you could have benefits like income support, child benefit, tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Whether you would get spousal support depends on whether he could afford to pay you more than the child support alone. I''d say it was a strong possibility that you would get some order for SM, but I have no idea as to the figures.
Does this sound like something which, in principle, you could live with ?
Does this offer a way forward which both of you can live with ?
Because if you can you may be able to settle the financials without breaking the back - for either of you.
LMM

Sorry I pop in but I have a question for anyone that knows about that.

Isn''t she entitled to 2/3 of the house because she has the children?

No Chained it doesnt work like that. Each situation is different. It depends upon the financial circumstances and needs of each party.

Could you elaborate, please?

For example, if a family has two children and a house on mortgage, isn''t it automatic that the parent the children are living with gets 2/3 of the house?

Perhaps we could keep this thread on track for the benefit of the OP?

Chained, you may find this useful in understanding the division of assets -

The court has to consider section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in order to make a decision as to how to divide your assets, incomes and liabilities.

The court considers all the circumstances of the case, giving first consideration to the welfare of any children of the family under the age of 18. The court then has regard to the following matters:

(a) The income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each spouse has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future including, in the case of earning capacity, any increase in that capacity which it would be, in the opinion of the court, reasonable to expect a person to take steps to acquire.

(b) The financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each spouse has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future.

(c) The standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage.

(d) The ages of each spouse and the duration of the marriage.

(e) Any physical or mental disability of each spouse.

(f) The contributions which each spouse has made or is likely to make in the foreseeable future to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family.

(g) The conduct of each spouse, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the Court be inequitable to disregard.

(h) The value to each spouse of any benefit which one spouse because of the divorce will lose the chance of acquiring (most usually pension provision).

So, where does this leave the OP with given their circumstances?

My original thought was that she would end up with 2/3 of the house equity since she will be the primary carer and the children will be primarily living with her.

So, if she wants to keep the house, she will have to pay the ex 1/3 of the equity, minus mortgage. If she does want to sell, then she will end up with 2/3 of equity minus mortgage.

Trying to simplify things actually here...