Mortgage payments plus maintenance?

[baffled1]

Hi
I am currently going through a seperation from my husband. I have stayed in the marital home and he has paid �400 a month towards the �600 mortgage. This is in lieu of maintenance. Can anyone tell me whether he should be paying half the mortgage payments i.e �300 per month plus maintenance which would be about �400.00 per month?

[kazza12345]

what does it matter? they are both the same amount of money ... if you chose to say it's in lieu of maintenance or it is maintenance, what difference does it make? Why should he pay 1/2 the mortgage if he is not living there? He would be entitled to insist on selling the house and splitting the profits

[baffled1]

kazza12345, thanks for your reply but the intention is that I remain in the house for the next 5 years whlist our kids are still at school and then, when they leave, the house be sold then and he receive half the equity then, which will obviously be considerably more that his entitlement now. The �400 per month then becomes a payment to protect his investment in this house and not maintenence don't you think?
If we sell the house now would he get 50% of the equity?

[kazza12345]

why wouldn't he get 50% of the equity now? Anyway, thats besides the point ... it seems a bit unfair to me if you are saying that the 400 pounds ids simply to protect his investment for 2 reasons 1) it's more than 1/2 the mortgage 2) he isn't even living there, and yet he would be expected to contribute a bigger share than the person who is living there. I would suppose it would depend on whether you are both working or not, who has been paying the mortgage up untill now etc. A solicitor should help you sort it out.. Imho, i think it should depend on who initiated the split too, so it's probably a good job that i'm not a divorce judge. If you are also working then i think you should contribute equally to maintenance of children, as you both made them and i don't think you should be maintained if you are working either. Bear in mind your ex will have his housing costs to pay too if he is the one who has moved out

[Pippa68]

I agree with Kazza ~ I very much doubt that the CSA would assess him at �700 per month for maintenance, and it is totally unfair to expect him to pay so much...he would have to be earning a shed load of money to be able to afford two sets of housing costs. IN any case, the CSA would most certainly take his mortgage/rental payments into consideration which may leave him with a nil assessment.

You would both be getting equal share of the house profit even if neither of you paid the mortgage payments. He could equally argue that he will be getting less out of the house sale as he has paid more of the mortgage.

If you require maintenance, the best option would be to sell the house now ~ you can then sort out your own rent/mortgage and he can be assessed on his earnings.

[BT76]

Ive been through this, and can say that as a rule the man usually comes out of this worse off (im my opinion).

I bought a house with my ex i 98/99 for �23,000. We split up just over 5 years ago and she sontinued to live in the house with my 2 daughters. Everyone i spoke to advised that although I could probably force a sale, what effect would it have on the kids?? So, I continued to pay the full mortgage and maintance on top. Any disccusion of how much the house was worth was met with "a house isnt worth anything unless you want to sell it and i dont..." After lots of arguments/discussions I was offered �3,000 as my share of the equity as the house wasnt being sold so I took it ( really needed the cash at the time) and signed an agreement to say that I had taken it. 2 months later the house was sold for just under 100K......sickening or what..

[lady_p_gold]

There are no hard and fast rules in these situations. When you get separated the solicitors normally make you do a list of all your needs and then both parties outgoings and debts and incoming money is looked at. Then an amount is worked out. You would probably be able to stay in the house until the children leave full time education and then when the property is sold (if indeed it is) then you could either agree on the split of the proceeds, or you could get a lump sum upon divorce. You might even get to keep the house, because upon divorce there would also be his pension and things to which you would be entitled to share (or he yours) and that can be quite a considerable amount. It all depends on what he earns, and the reason he should be paying is because what is paramount is the welfare of the children, regardless of who is to 'blame' for any breakup. As BT says it is usually the man that does end up worse off, because the mother usually stays in the house and is not the highest wage earner. It also depends on how long the marriage was and what your position was when you first met.

[baffled1]

thanks lady_p_gold for your answer.
My ex is self employed and pays himself whatever he wants. His total earnings are in excess of �70000 per annum but he just pays himself a dividend.
He does not have a pension and says that his company will be his pension. He also does not feel that it is 'fair' of me to expect to receive anything from the company even though I have said he could have half of my pension which is considerable. I currently have shares in the company as the secretary but he has asked me to sign these back to him. Don't know if I should. What do you think?
We would like to sort things out amicably but we both have different opinions on what is fair. I don't know why people always say that the men end up worse off in these situations. My ex has just come back off his 4th holiday in as many months and is renting a flash appartment because he can.
We were married for 14 years and had a comfortable standard of living. Should I expect my lifestyle and disposable income to plummet just because we have grown apart and want different things in life? I have no idea what the solicitors would deem was a reasonable settlement in these circumstances because I have not taken steps to find out as I naeively thought we would be able to reach an agreement between us. That is looking doubtful now.

[lady_p_gold]

Well the thing is this. If he is fair to you then he will put the welfare of the children and you first. By saying that he wants to sign over the shares etc. it is making it all very difficult for you. You must get your own solicitor and get advice now. A marriage of 14 years would be considered medium to long and I think you would get a lot more than you think. He may be busy trying to hide away his income, sorry to be cynical but it does happen all the time and you will have to prove how much he earns (he will be asked to provide copies of all the bank statements on his forms) The fact that you have been accustomed to a certain lifestyle will be taken into account. But ... be prepared to shell out quite a lot on legal fees .. and it is a bumpy ride, but I think you would eventually get a good settlement. I am not sure if one should advertise but one of the best lawyers is Peter Payne of Stephens and Scown in Exeter who has handled three divorces that I know of. Let's face it you are never going to agree and you do not have the legal knowledge to do it all yourself. From experience I would say, that with a good lawyer you would get an immediate maintenance agreeement (and don't forget you need to get the official date of separation sorted out) and you would get a lump sum enough to buy a house in your own right, albeit a little smaller, depending on how much equity is available. You are selling yourself short as he seems to be having a good lifestyle, and I am afraid one has to get a bit clever in these situations as it is the whole future of you and the children that is at stake and you have put 14 years into it all, regardless of the finances.