Wondered if anyone knew or could shed more light on.....
When the division of assets is decided at court based on the principal of needs, whose need for a larger %age of capital would be greater?
H in FMH with youngest child, up for sale, will have imminent need to rehouse upon sale. Lending capacity £95k, new home cost £150k. Need division on capital therefore £55k.
W in rented for last 18 month with eldest child, partner declared finally as moving in 4 months ago, no imminent need to rehouse upon sale as already housed. Sole lending capacity £35k new home cost £150k. Joint lending capacity with partner being disregarded? Need division on capital therefore £115K
With just £150k in the pot rather than the £170k needed to rehouse both, whose needs are greatest in terms of capital alone?
Would they make the decision of allowing one party to be housed over the other when each providing for a child?
Should both parties be expected to rent until further lending capacity can be achieved by either?
Should the lower earning party receive maintenance to assist their lending capacity at the detriment of the higher earner? Thereby allowing the decision of one party being rehoused over the other?
The thing that stands out for me in your scenario - is the statement "Joint lending capacity with partner being disregarded? ".
I'm not going to comment on "lending capacity", but simply on the fact that if this new partner is accepted as a permanent co-habitee then his ability to contribute towards the costs of her housing and other expenses is a factor that the courts will consider.
Her co-habiting does reduce her needs.
By focusing on "borrowing capacity" youve arrived at a 55K need verses a 115k need. Whereas I would have thought that because you are both caring for a child and because she has a new partner to contribute to the household finances - that you should be getting a significantly bigger share of the 150K pot.
I really cannot see why you should not get at least the full 55K that you need.