Does she get the house for free?

[daddio]

Hi All,
Just starting out with the separation and so far what a gong show! The ex has decided that she would keep the house and her and our two kids will continue to live there. For the time being until things get settled I haven't exactly moved out of the house and have been staying with family most of the time and staying at the house when I have the kids. The house is worth 400,000 with a 100,000 mortage and unless my math is wrong she should have to buy me out at 150000. She claims that since she is the primary caregiver and we have a responsibility to shelter our children that I have to walk away with nothing. Is this right or is she out to lunch on this? Can't reach my lawyer and need a little peace of mind here. Thanks for any advice. By the way we were married for ten years, we both had nothing, so its not like she owned the house before we got married.

[Stargate]

She's feeding you crap. Any assets (and debts) acquired during the marriage will end up being split in two but that may take a full year before the Settlement Conference is under way. If the equity of the home is $300,000 then she would owe you half of that if she decided to keep the house. If not, then the house gets sold and the proceeds of the sale (after paying off the balance of the mortgage) gets split in two. Either way you get your share.

[billm]

Yes, it should be simply and not require the courts. You split it all 50/50, debts, assets, pension, cpp, etc. You decide who keeps what (everything significant is valued), what is disposed of, and in the end you should both have exactly the same net worth. Simple.

Then you pay child support based on your income if she has the kids more than 60% of the time, or pay CS based on your relative incomes if you have the kids more equally (called the set off method for calculating CS).

Then, based on what happened in the marriage, you may pay (or received) spousal support.

Division of assets/debts has nothing to do with your obligation to the children after you separate.

That is the default starting point.

Now if she is entitled to SS, you can exchange SS for a lump sum payment from you to her for example, but again that is a trade off. The default is what is stated above.

Don't move out until this is settled! And don't give up 50/50 custody if you would like to equally raise you kids with your ex.

She may be scared that she can't afford the house etc, get a mortgage etc, but that may be accomplished with her working and possible SS from you. If in the end she can't afford the house, then it gets sold and she buys/rents something smaller - she can't expect the same life style when your expenses go up from having two homes etc, unless something else changes, like her working more, or you.

There is no reason the kids must live in the same house. It is nice for them, my kids enjoy being in their previous home half the time, but people move all the time and it is exciting usually for kids, even if not for adults.

Good luck to both of you.

[daddio]

Wow thank you, that is what I thought but she can get me pretty worked up when she wants just because her family is full of lawyers ( none of them practice family law ) but she has been using that angle lots. Should I have any worries if I were to move out completely and get my own place, according to her by leaving the relationship (oh yeah I caught her having affairs with other men) and her and the kids in the house I'm basically forfieting the house to her, even though I'm only doing it because I want my kids to be in their own home and do not want to disrupt their lives as little as possible. She was a terrible wife but has managed to be a pretty good mother so it's not like I want to drag the kids away from her.

[Stargate]

Wow thank you, that is what I thought but she can get me pretty worked up when she wants just because her family is full of lawyers ( none of them practice family law ) but she has been using that angle lots. Should I have any worries if I were to move out completely and get my own place, according to her by leaving the relationship (oh yeah I caught her having affairs with other men) and her and the kids in the house I'm basically forfieting the house to her, even though I'm only doing it because I want my kids to be in their own home and do not want to disrupt their lives as little as possible. She was a terrible wife but has managed to be a pretty good mother so it's not like I want to drag the kids away from her.

It doesn't matter if you move out of the house or not. Half of the equity of the house is yours. She can either agree to buy out your share and keep the house or alternatively if she cannot do that then the house gets sold by Court Order during the Settlement Conference. Either way you slice it half the house is and will be yours regardless whether or not you decide to stay in it now.

If you can afford it get your own place. It's cathartic and you get from under the stress of living with someone who was unfaithful. Just make sure you have generous access to your kids and that you exercise that access. i.e. don't abandon your kids in what is a difficult time for them.

[daddio]

Thanks so much I will sleep better tonight.

[Mess]

daddio, the question you need to answer is how much time do you want with your kids?

If you move out and don't already have an arrangement in place, then your ex has them pretty much 100%. It is really really hard to get that changed, expecially since any attempt to change it will take month/years by which time your ex can argue that the status quo should remain. If the kids are happy and healthy and she is not abusive then you won't be able to argue for significantly more custody.

Right now you are living there and you are equal parents. If you just up and move out without an agreement and parenting plan and schedule in place, you are not abandoning your property but you are pretty much abandoning your hopes of equal access to your children.

This may be fine with you, it is fine for many parents. But think long and hard about what you want.

Please don't assume that the kids will be happier without you, staying with their mum, staying in their old house, etc. My kids are in 50/50 shared for years and are happy and wouldn't dream of changing things. Each situation is different, but having two loving parents is better than a two hour visit with one every other weekend like they did in the 50's.

[daddio]

I agree with you totally. Right now I would say she has the kids 70% of the time for now until I can get settled in a new place and then it will be more like 60-40 hopefully. As I said I have been staying with family and also in my holiday trailer sometimes so not ideal for having the kids with me overnight. By the way the ex is not disputing my access to the kids she is encouraging me to be with them as much as possible.

[billm]

I agree with you totally. Right now I would say she has the kids 70% of the time for now until I can get settled in a new place and then it will be more like 60-40 hopefully. As I said I have been staying with family and also in my holiday trailer sometimes so not ideal for having the kids with me overnight. By the way the ex is not disputing my access to the kids she is encouraging me to be with them as much as possible.

Don't do 60/40, do 50/50, as family law has a retarded viewpoint of child costs where less than 40% = 0 with respect to your costs and you would have to pay FULL CS to her. She may take advantage of this if your custody split is near 60/40 and you will be financially disadvantaged.

If you have equal physical custody then CS is determined based on both of your incomes and assumes you have equal expenses to raise the kids.

[billiechic]

Don't do 60/40, do 50/50, as family law has a retarded viewpoint of child costs where less than 40% = 0 with respect to your costs and you would have to pay FULL CS to her. She may take advantage of this if your custody split is near 60/40 and you will be financially disadvantaged.

If you have equal physical custody then CS is determined based on both of your incomes and assumes you have equal expenses to raise the kids.

no, you do what is best for you and your kids. If it is better for them to be with their mom more (maybe because you don't live in the same school area) then you do that. Don't be swayed by doing what is "fair" to you and your ex, do what is best for your kids. Money and CS should NOT be anyone's first priority.

[Deputy Daddy]

do what is best for your kids. Money and CS should NOT be anyone's first priority.

That is great in theory, but the reality (tremendously flawed system) is that a NCP (non-custodial parent) is forced into near-poverty by child support. Unless the NCP plays little part in the child's life, It is never in a child's best interest to have a parent go bankrupt or live in a place where they would never want (or be able) to visit the NCP.

As long as both parents are willing and able to look after their kids 1/2 of the time then nothing else should be considered. If she encourages you to have the kids, but won't go beyond the 60/40 split then it's clear she values the child support more than the kids' well-being and relationship with you.

It sounds like you will have them a significant portion of the time anyway so don't accept less than 50%. This way the kids get the benefit of two parents who love them and can look after them when they are at each respective home.

One word of advice, should you seek 50% custody, plan to live in the same school zone as your ex does. It makes things soooo much easier and better for the kids. They can have the same friends at both parents' places, they get to know and feel at home in the neighbourhood, etc... etc...

good luck with it.

DD

[billiechic]

That is great in theory, but the reality (tremendously flawed system) is that a NCP (non-custodial parent) is forced into near-poverty by child support. Unless the NCP plays little part in the child's life, It is never in a child's best interest to have a parent go bankrupt or live in a place where they would never want (or be able) to visit the NCP.

DD

DD of course I agree with you. But I was basing my comment on the statement that for a $400,000 home they only have a $100,000 mortgage. I am guessing that neither parent will be going bankrupt over CS given the equity in the home.

And I wasn't saying that the poster should give sole custody to the other parent, only to do what's best for the kids. The poster has said the mother is encouraging as much contact as possible, therefore it seems that they may be able to work this out with the kids in mind rather than CS. If 60/40 works (as stated by the poster) then CS will not be "FULL CS" and both parents will spent lots of time with their children. Sometimes 50/50 is not for the best, or even possible.

As for living in the same school zone, for some of this that is just NOT possible. In my case it is not possible for me to afford the same area and pay high fees for gas to commute an hour from where he wants to live to my work. When we were together, we commuted together, but now expenses are double for gas for 2 vehicles. Our solution is for me to move into the school district where our daughter goes to daycare. As long as my STBX is able to drop her off and pick her up from daycare (or school when she starts) then we don't have to both live nearby. As this location is 10 mins from each of our employment, this works for us. It's not what is typically needed for shared custody to work, but it seems to be working (and "fair") for us.

[representingself]

If she encourages you to have the kids, but won't go beyond the 60/40 split then it's clear she values the child support more than the kids' well-being and relationship with you.

Just because one parent needs financial assistance from another parent does not mean that he/she values child support more than the childs well being and relationship with the other parent....

That's just ridiculous.

[billm]

Just because one parent needs financial assistance from another parent does not mean that he/she values child support more than the childs well being and relationship with the other parent....

That's just ridiculous.

I think the poster meant that she may be trying to play the time numbers such that she receives the full cs table amount instead of a reduced CS table amouint that recognizes that he will be essentially taking care of the kids the same amount of time and incurring the same amount of costs. Paying full CS while you have your kids practically half the time is ridiculous.

[representingself]

You can assume whatever you want about the posters intentions Bill... but what you "think" is not what he said.

I am sure deputydaddy is a big boy and he can provide a rebuttal if he so chooses. And I am sure he will....

No need to run to his defense