Currently going through the financial side of things, with a court appearence due in a few months time.
Situation is, married 12 years, two children 13 and 14. My takehome is about 3000 per month. Hers around 1500 per month, which is made up of salay, tax credits and child benefit. FMH is worth about £380k, with a mortgage of £70000. ExWife only recently started working again after bringing up the children during their early years.
The current view from her and solictors is to remain in FMH until children leave full time education. They are also requesting spousal maintenance of about £700 per month on top of about £500 Child support. For this they have suggested I get 20% of the equity once the children have left full time education.
Having looked at the figures it leaves me with about £60 per month to buy food and have any kind of life. (I could do with losing a bit of weight, but not that much)
The FMH is quite a large property and in reality there is no need to stay there. I have done some figures and if the house was sold with a 70/30 equity split, it would allow her to buy a suitable property without mortgage. On top of that it would actually allow both of us to have a reasonable amount of money left over every month, which in my view would mean that we could do far much with the children, and effectively give them a better life.
So after this long post I would like to know what people's experiences are with the court to situations like this.
I would have thought that the staring point for division of assets after a long marriage is 50:50.
If you are paying child maintenance and spousal maintenance I can see no reason why it shouldn't be 50:50. The Court's principle is that both parents should be entitled to a reasonable lifestyle.
My circumstances are different to yours in that x2b earns a similar amount to me. FMH is 5 bedroomed house and at recent first appointment the judge said that it would have to be sold as x2b and son did not need 5 bedrooms. So I suppose it depends how big you FMH is
FMH is a 4 double bed house, with 3 receptions rooms, and a large garden. It is quite old so there is a quite an upkeep in terms of time.
I dont want to force a house sale, but I cant help thinking that it would be better all round. There would be far much more available cash from both sides, which would in fact increase the standard of living. My view is that quality of life is not determined by what you live in or where, but what you do with it.
Having read postings on here & with regards to my partners situation common sense in these matters doesnt usually prevail.
After months of preparing for FDR, collating information & putting forward several options for how both parties could afford housing it was all dismissed by the judge & he advised his recommendation would be in favour of the ex's proposal which was:
House is signed over to her
My partner remains on the mortgage (as she refuses to take over sole responsibility for it)
Spousal maintenance is paid (at a rate yet to be agreed)
Child maintenance is paid according to CSA calculations
My partner receives 40% equity once all the children have finished full time education to first degree level or (at the earliest) the youngest reaches 18
My partner explained to the judge that this means he would not be able to afford a home of his own (we are currently renting) as he will be financially attached to a mortgage of a house he doesnt live in or even own... the judge accepted his point but said the reality is he doesnt earn enough to pay for 2 houses so this would be his recommendation at FH!!
So please be prepared for the worst - that way anything better is a huge bonus!
I've just had my FDR and the judge recommended a 50/50 split of assets after debts, this despite me having main custody of our 2 children. We were in the process of selling our family home at £725k, total equity after debts around £260k. I had arranged to purchase a house at £265k still leaving me with a mortgage of over 150k on a salary of 48k while my ex-wife lied about her earning potential etc having just given up a 100k per year contract claiming that she could only earn 20k now. She was also refusing to pay any child maintenance and it is my belief that she is cohabiting with a new partner and working self employed through his company but not declaring any income.
I think it all depends on the judge on the day but it all seems so completely random - I was really expecting a 60/40 split in my favour. Everything does seem very biased in favour of women over men even though I have the children!
got to disagree with you there rdcox, i have the children with me 1 having special needs we were homeless living on an inflatable matress , no hot water , no heating only a kettle and toaster in the kitchen so some days i had to go without food as i could'nt keep affording to eat out, whilst my ex has had a life of luxery driving a sports car , holidaying in different places, paying no child support so it does'nt always go the womans way and i know there are others like me on this forum.
It really does seem to depend on the judge, the weather, the time of day, the phase of the moon etc
I have read on here that there are women who are just as hard done by as men, and I do try to keep this in mind when I think of the case I am involved in.
However, I think that the judge in my particular experience was biased in favour of emotional unprovable arguments over and above the financial arguments with supporting evidence. This is what annoys me about the system, regardless of who feels hard done by