I am finding hard to find any information as to what may happen in my case. My solicitor is not commiting to anything so hopefully someone here can help me understand. I would have thought this was a common problem though
My ex2b is in the martial home there is not enough equity in the house for her to buy a suitable property and she dosn't have a full time job. We have 2 children 3y and 8y.
She can't afford to buy me out. I could afford to buy her out though but again there is not enough equity and she couldn't get a suitable mortgage.
I pay all the bills including the shopping currently which is way more than the amount I would have to pay if I calculate the maintenance.
My question really is will I have to keep paying the extra money/maintenance to keep the house running/pay the mortgage whilst i will only recieve possibly 30% of the equity some day in the future.
This will also not let me move on as I will have no equity, be paying excesive amounts of maintenance and still have the original mortgage.
I can break the details down but I am more interested in the substance of how this breaks down
Yes, you're right, it's a common problem. By the way, I hope you didn't REALLY mean the martial home !!
Where there are dependent children involved, as in your case, the Court requires that the interests of the children are paramount. That's not to say the parents don't matter, as I will explain. But it does mean the kids need a roof over their heads, and that means that in most cases, where resources are limited, the parent with care ( PWC ) will have the right to remain in the former marital home ( FMH ) until the children are grown up or the wife re-marries or voluntarily vacates, at which stage the house is sold and the proceeds divided. This arrangement is usually called a Mesher order, after the case in which this type of order was first used.
The division of the proceeds of the sale, when it eventually happens, is settled at the time of the order. The Courts are not clairvoyants, and can't second guess what the position in 10 years or so might be, but they tend to assume that by then the husband ( it usually is ) will have found accommodation, whereas the wife will be forced to sell to pay the husband off, and may not be able to do this if she only got 50/50. So the wife's share tends to be more ; 70% is not impossible by any means.
But I want to stress that this doesn't happen in all cases ; for example, it is likely that the Court would order a sale if it is clear that the wife will not be able to afford the outgoings on the house even with such child support and spousal maintenance as she may get ; in such a case renting might be a better option. Or the house might be large because there are many children, but when the children have grown up, there may be enough equity in the house to enable the wife to buy her own accommodation with a 50/50 split.
Child support is calculated according to a statutory formula and the Courts have no discretion about it. Sometimes the question for the Court is then whether you can afford to pay spousal maintenance at all. You must remember the Court must ALWAYS allow you your housing costs, as long as they're reasonable, of course. It'snot that the wife's needs have to be met in full and you have to manage on what's left. You have your needs too and they must be allowed for. You should check your wife's entitlement to benefits, notably tax credits, now that she is on her own or soon will be.
I can understand why your solicitor does not want to commit. Everything depends on your circumstances and even minor differences can lead to a different outcome.