A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Mon/Fri 9am-6pm       Sat/Sun 2pm-6pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info


What are we each entitled to in our divorce settlement?

What does the law say about how to split the house, how to share pensions and other assets, and how much maintenance is payable.

What steps can we take to reach a fair agreement?

The four basic steps to reaching an agreement on divorce finances are: disclosure, getting advice, negotiating and implementing a Consent Order.

What is a Consent Order and why do we need one?

A Consent Order is a legally binding document that finalises a divorcing couple's agreement on property, pensions and other assets.


Do you need help sorting out a fair financial settlement?

Our consultant service offers expert advice and support to help you reach agreement on a fair financial settlement quickly, and for less than a quarter of the cost of using a traditional high street solicitor.


Should I try and present my finances better than the already are?

  • solvethis84
  • solvethis84's Avatar Posted by
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
15 Jun 20 - 15 Jun 20 #512853 by solvethis84
Topic started by solvethis84
Typically you hear of people trying to paint the most negative picture of their finances. In many cases this is tactical to try and argue for a higher share of the assets due to needs.

In my case, which is approaching the Final Hearing, I need £100,000 (50%) from the equity of the house. With this deposit, my mortgage capacity would enable me to be rehoused in a property suitable for me and visits to the children.

My ex (who lives with the children) is arguing that there is only enough in the pot to meet her housing needs, and any amount left would not be enough for me to buy. She is insisting she has a very low mortgage capacity (despite being the higher earner) and would need the majority of the equity if we were to share it today. She is also using loans from family for legal expenses so on paper he debt looks bad. Therefore she is proposing a Mesher.

I don't really want a Mesher I don't think. I would be worried about the value of my asset decreasing all while seeing my monthly income go on rent making it difficult to save for the future. She is currently paying the mortgage and agrees she can afford to continue doing this on her own. I would perhaps consider a Mesher a reasonable outcome but only if her capital contributions get added to the joint pot. So when I do eventually get my equity (say it was 10-12 years) we will both only need a very small mortgage. Is that a likely possibility?

If I instead aimed for a 45% split to accommodate her debts/apparent lack of mortgage capacity I'd be £10,000 short of buying a house from what I can tell. Or £20,000 if I achieved 40% etc. Would the court be likely to make such an award If I can't purchase a house from it? I could see why they could argue I don't need it and therefore I shouldn't get anything now (Mesher). This was their approach at the FDR

But should I counter this by presenting my financial outlook better. e.g. in 2 years I hope my salary to increase by X have £5,000 in savings, and potentially (not guaranteed) borrow/be gifted money from family to make up the shortfall.
Last edit: 15 Jun 20 by solvethis84.

  • LittleMrMike
  • LittleMrMike's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
28 Jun 20 #513041 by LittleMrMike
Reply from LittleMrMike
With regards to your last paragraph, sir, definitely no. The Courts only look at your situation as it is. They do not like looking into crystal balls or tealeaves.

You tend to get this argument when one party stands to
inherit a fortune from Great Aunt Jemima and Auntie is not looking too well.

If I may offer a word of advice - if you are going in for a Mesher,
don't, whatever you do, agree to your receiving a fixed sum. It may be many years before you can realise your interest . So its better to ask for a percentage, so that you benefit from any increase in value during the intervening period when the property remains unsold.

LMM

  • hadenoughnow
  • hadenoughnow's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
28 Jun 20 #513043 by hadenoughnow
Reply from hadenoughnow
Loans from the family are not considered as pressing as commercial debts. They would likely be treated as soft loans ie not really to be paid back.

One question here is whether the FMH could be sold and two suitable properties purchased with the available funds plus mortgage capacity.

Another would be whether the mortgage capacity report she has provided is accurate. Has it been challenged? Can you provide evidence - say using an online mortgage calculator and affordability criteria to show she isn't being entirely straight on this point? The evidence would have to be served on the other side. I would suggest the way to do it may be to ask for updated evidence of mortgage capacity from an independent broker. Then if they refuse, you can present your evidence and ensure it is included in the court bundle and raised in the statement of issues.

NB Where possible the court will alway seek a Clean Break.

You can always explore options such as shared ownership in order to be able to show you can afford to buy a place now with an affordable mortgage.

Without access to the financial details it is really is impossible to advise effectively. Have you got a solicitor or are you LIP? If you are LIP it may be worth getting some help to prepare for Final Hearing. Give the helpline a call to see how we can assist.

Hadenoughnow

  • solvethis84
  • solvethis84's Avatar Posted by
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
28 Jun 20 #513054 by solvethis84
Reply from solvethis84
Thanks for the responses.

LMM - not sure if I'm going for a Mesher, but it may be the solution proposed by ex. I understand the courts will look to make a Clean Break, but I would want to understand what I would be faced with in the event of a Mesher. Assuming she pays the mortgage, would it be more common for her capital contributions to be deducted from my eventual payout? I had always considered it being a percentage split, rather than the less favourable set amount. Ideally a near 50% split of updated value minus updated mortgage outstanding.

Hadenoughnow - The information you provide is much appreciated. I've had some legal advice at certain stages in the case and what you say is very much consistent with that.

I used an independant broker to find out her mortgage capacity is 2 or 3 times what she is claiming it is. I challenged it ahead of the FDR and strongly disputed it in my 'schedule of deficiencies' My evidence was ignored throughout the FDR. I plan to supply this evidence for the final hearing despite ex's solicitor claiming its 'inadmissible' because it wasn't ordered by the court.

My argument is that the FMH could be sold and us both rehoused, but I think that would be dependant on my evidence of her mortgage capacity being accepted rather than hers. Seems anything but a certainty.

Regarding the family loans, could we assume the priority of needs could be the following?

1. Housing needs of ex (who lives with the children)
2. Housing needs of me
3. Repayment of family loans

I appreciate this is somewhat simplifying the situation, but is it possible that the court would award her extra money on top of her basic housing needs in order to repay the family loans? This scenario would directly result in me having less capital to be rehoused.

  • solvethis84
  • solvethis84's Avatar Posted by
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
28 Jun 20 #513055 by solvethis84
Reply from solvethis84
Thanks for the responses.

LMM - not sure if I'm going for a Mesher, but it may be the solution proposed by ex. I understand the courts will look to make a Clean Break, but I would want to understand what I would be faced with in the event of a Mesher. Assuming she pays the mortgage, would it be more common for her capital contributions to be deducted from my eventual payout? I had always considered it being a percentage split, rather than the less favourable set amount. Ideally a near 50% split of updated value minus updated mortgage outstanding.

Hadenoughnow - The information you provide is much appreciated. I've had some legal advice at certain stages in the case and what you say is very much consistent with that.

I used an independant broker to find out her mortgage capacity is 2 or 3 times what she is claiming it is. I challenged it ahead of the FDR and strongly disputed it in my 'schedule of deficiencies' My evidence was ignored throughout the FDR. I plan to supply this evidence for the final hearing despite ex's solicitor claiming its 'inadmissible' because it wasn't ordered by the court.

My argument is that the FMH could be sold and us both rehoused, but I think that would be dependant on my evidence of her mortgage capacity being accepted rather than hers. Seems anything but a certainty.

Regarding the family loans, could we assume the priority of needs could be the following?

1. Housing needs of ex (who lives with the children)
2. Housing needs of me
3. Repayment of family loans

I appreciate this is somewhat simplifying the situation, but is it possible that the court would award her extra money on top of her basic housing needs in order to repay the family loans? This scenario would directly result in me having less capital to be rehoused.

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11