Although the old vow, “with all my worldly goods I thee endow” doesn’t apply literally, it does apply to a certain extent and whilst you have bailed him out, you didn’t get married so you went into it with your eyes open and it was only after it went pear-shaped.
I don’t how long you would together before marriage but the total time you were together would be taken into account.
With regard to the division of finances, you can ask for all this to be taken into account to reduce the amount that he gets but it’s not going to reduce it to nothing although it’s unlikely he’s going to get half.
You would not be the first person who’d stayed in a marriage because they didn’t want to lose everything they have built up. Catch-22.
A person who believes that they are being bullied or who has been a victim of domestic violence or coercive controlling behaviour, can apply to court for a non-molestation order to prevent the other person coming within 100 m of them and an occupation order for the alleged perpetrator to move out of the house.
Here are the government webpages on exactly this subject. https://www.gov.uk/injunction-domestic-violence.
A range of people can apply to the court: spouses, cohabitants and ex-cohabitants, people living in the same household (but not employees), tenants, lodgers, boarders, and certain relatives such as parents grandparents, in-laws, brothers sisters, and engaged couples. So basically people who are in a close relationship either physically or family or living together whether that’s in a relationship or just the same house.
There doesn't actually have to be physical violence per se because there can be coercive behaviour for example as you will read in this excellent article: D
If living arrangements are involved, it is very often impractical to live in the same house and it would very often be allied to an occupation order which defines or regulates the rights of occupation of property by the parties involved.
Many landlords will not change the name of the tenancy agreement for example without a Occupation Order.
It always helps if a report was made to the police recently because that is good evidence that this actually happened. The reason is that to report something to the police which hasn’t happened is a serious offence of wasting police time and/or attempting to pervert the course of justice which potentially carries a short jail sentence. So the civil court will take more notice if it has been reported to the police.
Having said that, the civil court will normally err on the side of caution and grant the order. However if the order is applied for based upon fabricated facts and that comes out in the wash, that is also perverting the course of justice and contempt of court and also potentially carries a jail sentence.
It is one of the few areas of law which legal aid is still available in certain circumstances so it is certainly worthwhile contacting the solicitor in the first instance.
As there is usually some urgency with these kind of applications, it can be done on an emergency basis and there is the facility on the form to do that. An applicant can also attach a Certificate of Urgency (a letter with that heading) explaining why this should be in court on an emergency basis, usually within a day or so.
These applications are usually made “ex parte” which means that the other side doesn’t get notice. What I mean by that is that they are not told “if you do this again we will make an application to court”.
The first they know about it is when the applicant gets the order and they are given the order.
The effect of the order is exactly the same as a restraining order to restraining order is something applied for by the police/CPS through the magistrates court (or exceptionally the Crown Court) whereas a non-molestation order is through the family/civil court.
Section 1 of the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 May the breach of a non-molestation order a criminal offence. It’s serious stuff.
What will happen with regard to the division of marital finances is that everything will be lumped in together including pensions. With regard to pensions you will need a Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) which converts the pension to a lump sum for the mathematical calculation. You cannot get hold of that money but it converts it to a theoretical cash equivalent.
All the value of the assets are then lumped together and there is a division which starts off at 50-50 and it would then be adjusted in favour of one spouse or the other spouse depending on the needs of the parties, how long they have been married, where the money came from, et cetera et cetera.
Not just the length of the marriage would be taken into account but also any length of time together before marriage because it would be unfair if the couple were together for 29 years and only married for one year before splitting up (not uncommon) to be treated in the same way as a couple who had a whirlwind romance got married, were married for 12 months, and then split up. So the whole length of the relationship would be taken into account.
It’s largely a mathematical thing but does look at needs after divorce.
Even if everything is being divided down the middle, it’s not really a case of dividing it down the middle, all the assets wouldn’t be split 50-50 but, for example one person may keep the house and the other for example could have the savings and the pensions.
The fact that his name is ***** ***** the deeds doesn’t affect his financial claim. It’s the same whether it’s in your name, his name, or joint names.
With regard to the house,
The potential problem you have here is that you have dependent children.
Parents are under a duty to provide a home for dependent children until they reach 18 and therefore, unless there is a lot of equity in the property, sufficient to release enough to the non-resident parent and provide a home for the resident parent and the children until the youngest reaches 18, it’s unlikely that the non-resident parent is going to be able to force a sale of the property.
The only good news is that the party that remains in the property is responsible for the mortgage and the bills.
The situation would be completely different if there were no children and it would be infinitely possible for the person wishing to sell to force a sale of the property if necessary under section 14 of the Trusts of Land Appointment of Trustees Act by applying for an “order for sale”.
Dependent children, under 18, change all that.
Thank you for letting me assist you with your legal question. I am glad that I was able to help.
I am not certain whether that answers the question for you or not, but I am happy to answer any specific points arising from this.
It will be my pleasure to help you again either further with this or any future questions you have