I find myself at the point where my wife and I are trying to split amicably. The major stumbling block that we can see is the FMH.
We have 2 children under 18 and live in a house worth £130k with a mortgage of £129k. Essentially there''s no equity so it will cost both of us thousands just to move out which neither of us want.
I have always been the better paid of the two of us. I earn £35k and she earns £15k a year. The mortgage costs me £650/mo.
Ideally I would sign over the house to her, pay maintenance and leave her with the house in her name only, without taking a penny. She could then fund the house and top up with tax credits.
Our concern is that on her wages, even with my contribution of £500/mo and any benefits she can get our mortgage company would decline to accept her as the sole owner of the house.
Is this situation "typical" or are we going about this the wrong way ? I appreciate that mortgage companies vary greatly in their views but all we want is for the kids to remain in the house while we, if possible, split in the "nicest" way.
Having you name on the deeds and taking on the mortgage are two desperate things. You may find the only way is to stay on the mtg and sing the deeds over to her, you then be released when youngest is 18, she can mortgage, she cohabits, remarries ect ect; this is common and referred to as a mesher order. Do a search here and in google to find out more. And yes, this is very typical where children and only one "breadwinner" are concerned. It normally means no mortgage for you for awhile but it''s the way the cookie crumbles in divorce