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.
With regard to the house,…
You have to remember that if you have dependent children, under 18, the situation can be completely different.
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 some money to the non-resident parent AND provide a home for the resident parent aAND 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. However in those circumstances the resident parent would be responsible for the mortgage and the bills not the non-resident parent although there is still the possibility of child maintenance and spousal maintenance.
If the parent with residence of the children cannot afford doesn't want to live in the property because, for example, it's too big, they can always sell it and asked the court to apply the proceeds to a new house to provide a home for the children until they reach 18. Only then would it be sold.
You say that there is equity just over GBP300,000 which is probably just enough to buy a three bedroomed house although it depends where you live.
If child residence is genuinely 50-50 then no child maintenance is payable.
There is a possibility of a liability for spousal maintenance, maintenance paid to keep a spouse , as opposed to children. Although most commonly paid from husband to wife, that is not necessarily the case. Spousal maintenance is based on both incomes, ability to earn money, previous lifestyles and most importantly, need. It is not about equalising incomes. There is no exact formula, but these links will give some reading..
And here is an interesting and informative article with regard to the division of finances in general
And finally, here is an article what happens to inheritance in the event of a
If the child was 18, then there is a good chance that everything would be split close to 50-50 but as it is now, it appears to be “take 50 grand now or wait another 13 years to get half of the house” (when the child reaches 18.
What you have to ask is whether waiting that period for the Lions share or rather closer to 50%, as a practical proposition for you.
The only good news is A person is not responsible for the mortgage or rent or the bills of a house that they do not live in although they remain liable to the lender or landlord if the other person stays in the property and doesn’t pay the mortgage or rent.
In that case, the non-occupier would be entitled to recover any mortgage or rental payments made by the non-occupier, from the occupier within the finances of the breakup of the relationship/marriage.
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