We are in the early days of our separation and it already seems fraught...
Just had a conversation with ex. She says that because of her lower earning potential and the fact that she has only ever worked 3.5 days a week to fit around my shift work and kids that she will definitely need more than a 50:50 split.
I take home 3000 she 2200 ish allowing for tax credits (not yet in place). The Divorce Calculator suggests a 60:40 split. At this level, I could just about manage to buy her out of her share of the FMH.
She has agreed to sharing responsibility for the boys, wants it to be a fluid arrangement. I would rather try to negotiate equal shared residence. Due to my shifts, I have always been very involved in the boys upbringing.. Both practically and emotionally. The boys all say they would like to spend an equal amount of time with each of us.
The benefits are less upheaval for 3 boys 8,11,15. eldests GCSE year. They get to stay in familiar surrondings during an unsettling time.
They can have a gentle transition to a new home rather than the sdden move to 2 new homes.
It could be done relatively quickly without all the vagueries of the property market.
The benefit of retaining a mortgage on extremely favourable terms that will mean around £600 per month more to share out together in comparison to us needing two new mortgages or mortgage and rent etc.. Much more expensive for less money and two 3 bed houses.
Her objection is that whilst she acknowledges that she cannot take over the mortgage and release me to set up a new home, she considers it ''un palletable'' that I should end up in the FMH when she wont be able to afford a similar four bed property. There are however plenty of three bed properties that would be within her reach.
It was she who ended the relationship unilaterally not that that should ha ve a bearing.
Can she force a sale rather than allow a possible buyout?
Is this a case of not accepting the reality of our situation (from either side?).
From a non emotional point of view the benefits of my buying her out seems to make sense. Would a court veiw it this way?
I do not really want the financial liability of such a large mortgage, but I am trying to think of what will be best for the boys.
I really do not want to enter into a prolonged arrangement if at all possible.I feel that a Clean Break will enable us both to move on and give the boys some certainty about their futures.
Dont we just need to acheive 2 adequate households whilst maintaining the maximum amount of money to be shared between us each month? Or can she demand to be housed in an home of equal value?
Am I being selfish of practical?
Your views gratefully appreciated.
Well, let''s get back to basics.
Firstly, you must both have a home. Ideally, that home should be sufficient to allow for staying access to the children with both parents.
Secondly, in the great majority of cases, divorce will involve some diminution of lifestyle for both of the former spouses, and the trick, as far as possible, is to share the reduction equally.
Thirdly, where there are dependent children, as here, the Courts will always prioritise the needs of the children. In your case, it would seem to me that there is enough cash and equity here to satisfy the primary objective of a decent home for you both. In many cases that we see on wiki, that is not the case ; what typically happens is that the wife is allowed to stay in the FMH until the children reach majority, and the husband has to rent. There is certainly no principle that a divorcing spouse has the right to a home of equal value with that enjoyed by the other.
Fourthly, the Court certainly has the power to order a buy out ; this is done by transferring the whole of the equity into the name of one spouse and ordering the other to pay a lump sum.
Fifthly, my friend, and I say this out of concern for you. I am an old man now, I have lived a long time. At the moment, interest rates on mortgages are at a historically low level. You are proposing to take out a mortgage you can just about afford, with interest rates at a level so low that you are tempted to say they can''t really fall any further. They can only go one way, up. I have, in my time, had to pay 15% on my mortgage for a very short period, prior to the so called Black Wednesday ( you got tax relief on the payments at the time ). You are proposing to take on a long term commitment. It is almost inconceivable that interest rates will not rise. Then you are up the creek without a paddle. It is a true saying, what has happened before will happen again.
This is not an answer to your question, I know. Just be careful.
I am aware of the risk. I am not proposing that this is a long term solution. Maybe three years or so whilst the dust settles and exams are finished etc. This is really about trying to think about the children''s best interests.