We have been married for 10 years and have a 5y old daughter.
We have agree to split as my wife no longer want to be with me, no other person involved. We sat down and worked out all of our assetts including furniture cars profit on the house and took off all outstanding debts. Which meant we would both walk away with 50K. I had seen a lawyer and took all the figures which stated that on top of her 50K I would give her and extra £300 a month for 3 years to help with her mortgage payments as I want to make sure our daughter is living in a nice area and in a nice home, and give her also £250 a month child maintenanace, and we would both share custody 50-50. everything seemed fine.
My wife has always worked with an earning capicity of £28k when our daughter was born she took maternity leave and she went back 4 day a week but worked from home. She was made reduntant, got another job continued to work 4 days 2 long days and 2 short days, but she had to travel to work. Since we have decided to split she has decided to reduce her hours to 18,she says she does not want to work any longer then that, which is why I said I would give her the extra money.
Yesterday she saw a lawyer under the 45 min free advise, and he told her to take the house off the market, and that she could stay in the house and I would have to pay the mortgage, until our child leaves education, and that I would also have to pay her spoucial maintenance.
Is it corrrect that although she has the ability to work if she chooses not to I will have to look after her, even though none of this is my fault!
Depending on the particular facts it can happen. Assets are shared according to a checklist of factors in s25 Matrimonial Cases Act 1973.
The priority is the welfare of children, in particular keeping a roof over their heads. If you earn more than your wife you will be able to raise a larger mortgage and she may require a larger share of capital and spouse maintenance to be left on a similar financial footing. Equality in divorce settlements isn''t a mathematical 50:50 it''s about leaving both parties in the same position.Sometimes the only way to keep a roof over the heads of children is maintain an interest in the former matrimonial home until the youngest child is old enough to become independent.
Earning potentials and child caring responsibilities are other factors in the equation.
This could come into it but it would look extremely bad on your ex if she did this. Particularly if the aim is 50/50 care (although i suspect this will soon be pulled if she is going down that route). However it is very unlikely, unless you are a very high earner, that you would be ordered to pay your ex''s mortgage. She may win the right to stay in the FMH but she would have to be able to pay her way even if your name stayed on the mortgage.
Solicitors work for the benefit of those they represent and she will have been presented with a best case, husband rolling over and agreeing, type scenario. She will not get this, this is the ideal. But she might manage to negotiate you to somewhere in the middle of this and what you had originally agreed.
The ability to work is actually valued quite highly by some courts. Some, however, do not think this way and like mums to stay at home. But by going down the legal route she is taking a very big chance that any judge who might take on this case would agreed with her.