Of the four houses we obviously want my wife to stay in the FMH, which currently has a £120K mortgage, and a £60K equity.
Of the £120K mortgage there is a loan of £12K which I could take responsibility for bringing the equity to £72k and the mortgage payments to approximately £400, which she could easily afford on her benefits using income support, and tax credits when she finds a job (she is activley looking).
Technically this solves her and the childrens housing issues, and with the child maintenance payments I will be making she would actually be better off than we are now by some way.
To make things better we could also liquidate one of the buy to let properties and reduce her mortgage by another £20K - £30K. This would reduce her mortgage to something like £350 and she could be holding on to the best part of £90K equity.
This could potentially leave me with 2 properties which have a combined ~£70K equity which I could then use to fund a house purchase.
But because I earn £32K a year this doesn''t seem to be acceptable, even though my wife is now several hundred pounds a month better off we are still being advised that we should look at liquidating a 3rd or even 4th property and paying it off the FMH.
I can''t see any sense to it. It all seems to be geared up to reduce the husband to next to nothing. There seems to be little regard for where my children are going to be staying when they are with me.
Yes, I think there is somewhere in the order of £180K, and yes I probably could borrow £112K which would not buy me anything suitable for the children.
My wife does not currently work, and would be seeking benefits, but intends to find some part time employment to maximise her income. So technically she couldn''t get a mortgage, but why would she need to raise a mortgage in the first place to stay in the FMH?
I have been told that I could sign over the title deed to the FMH, and it is quite common for the husband to stay on the mortgage. I was also told this shouldn''t impact upon me buying a property for myself as it was "common garden" for divorced men to be in this position.
This information was supplied by Wiki, have I misunderstood this?
Actually looking at the finances my wife would be £100 worse off than we are now, but with one less mouth to feed, one less car to insure and run, and if I took the loans and credit cards 3 bills less to pay.
She would in actual fact be quite comfortable.
I on the other hand would have a much bigger mortgage to pay, and child maintenance. Effectivley, I with the income, would be living like a pauper.