My wife moved out and is living in a rented property that suits her needs and is closer to my childrens school. I have the mortgage on the family home 100% in my name. I understand that she would have a starting point of 50/50 on the house, but would i be justified in stating i want the proprty sold and the profut split equal?
Even though her name isnt on the mortgage, the house would be classed as a martial asset and she would be entitled to share in accordance with the 1973 Martial act which is based on the needs of each party.
Yes, you would be justified to say that. Be prepared for her to come back with arguements as to why she should receive more though.
However, I believe you would certainly have the house sold and equity split as she no longer lives there, so I don''t believe you are in danger of her refusing to sell.
It''s difficult to comment without knowing the specific details so the remarks below are just general.
With divorce settlements equality means living both parties on a similar financial footing rather than a mathematical 50% split. If there are enough assets to meet both parties needs, in particular for housing, and there was no exceptional contribution from one party assets would be shared 50:50. If there aren''t enough assets a checklist of factors in s25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is referred to and usually the "needs" is at the top, or near the top, of the list.
The priority is the welfare of children and keeping a roof over their heads. A good starting point is to check out local property prices and both parties mortgage raising capabilities. If the children live mainly with your wife she will need a more substantial house than you do to have them for overnight stays. If your wife''s income is less than you she won''t be able to raise as much mortgage as you and she would require a larger share of capital to leave her on the same financial footing.