Well, you're right to test the temperature of the water before diving in.
I'm sorry, I don't think you're going to like this.
On the basis of what you say, I think
1. It is highly likely the Court would order a sale of the
FMH.
2. My namesake is right when he says that 50% is a starting point, but the needs of the parties, and in particular their need for a home, is always more important that mathematical formulas.
3. The fact that you owned the house before marriage is not without relevance, but the longer the marriage, the less important it becomes.
4. There is also quite a disparity in your net incomes, and the issue of spousal maintenance did cross my mind. As a general rule of thumb, and award would be considered if your earnings were more than twice those of your wife. So you are just on the right side of the border but - - you're close.
5. I think a judge might take a view that your income, and therefore your ability to borrow, is rather better than your wife's. It is possible that her share of the equity might be more than 50% to allow for this factor. Now I do not want to be dogmatic about this because it may depend on where you live and whether it is possible for your wife to buy a suitable house with her share of the equity. It's obviously more difficult if you live in London. But the point is, your wife needs a home and a judge will want to make sure she has one.
6. The trade off could be a
Clean Break and disposing of your wife's possible claim to maintenance.
I cannot claim to be the world's leading authority on the subject and perhaps you could get an appointment with an experienced family law solicitor and check this out. Shouldn't cost you an arm and a leg.
Mike 100468
