Hi, can anyone help me with some advice? I’m about to start divorce proceedings with my husband for many reasons! We have 2 children aged 8 and 17. We own our home, 10 years ago the critical illness policy for our mortgage paid out when I was diagnosed with MS, which the majority was paid towards the mortgage. It was a joint policy but obviously paid out because of me. My solicitor believes I should be entitled to the amount that was paid out before the remainder of the house value is split 50/50. His solicitor believes that this is not the case and the house value should be split between the two of us. I know that I am entitled to live in the house until my youngest is 18 but I’m not sure if I want to. Has anyone else experienced this or have any advice? Thanks Vicki
I am of course sorry to hear of your situation. It is tragic when so many hopes and dreams are dashed due to unreconcilable differences.
your union was an equal partnership; as was your insurance policy and home ownership. on that basis, the claim and ‘award’ was also mutually available and presumably, the decision to use these monies towards the payment of your mortgage was agreed upon by you both. considering the sharing of all things preceding your the commencement of your current separation process, i’m inclined to say the split should also be 50-50 and your solicitor is a baffoon.
but what the hell do i know? do what you feel is right, but also what is most to your benefit. money is nice, but a stress free existence (when you have MS) could be even better. some battles just aren’t worth winning.
the very best of luck to you, both!
Hi Vicki
There was a very similar question to this asked a few weeks ago on this forum (although that original poster also went into detail about how bad a husband her ex had been!) It may be difficult to find the thread now, but it may be worth taking the time to try. There were many posts, arguments back and forth; some posters agreed with your solicitor and some disagreed. Honestly, I think the upshot was that there is no ‘right’ answer. It’s a moral as well as a legal principle and as many of us have already spent a long time thinking and writing about the issue, you may not get as many replies as you’d like. I hope you find an equitable solution to the problem.
Sue
I’ve just looked for the old post, it was started on 13th July by an anonymous poster and is currently on page 16 of this forum. The writer of the post was coming at the issue from the other side of the argument, ie, the ex husband was the one with MS so it was his critical illness policy that paid out.
Sue
Hi, I am very sorry to hear how your marriage has ended…I know it will have been painful for you and your children and no doubt, your soon to be ex husband.
We have 2 daughters who have both gone through divorce and it is truly a horrible experience. Our second daughter got the divorce through fairly quickly, but the trauma is on-going due to her ex messnig about with the arrangements concerning the children.
So back to you, it is a difficult question you are asking. I think if it were me, I would consider which spouse, if any, did the dirty. If it was your ex and you weren`t to blame, the he should suffer more than you financially.
Other replies may differ…we all have our own feelings on marraige break up.
I hope you manage to get through ths awful time…your children will hurt. You will hurt…your spouse will hurt.
I am sorry.
luv Pollx
I tend to agree with Paolo. If your critical illness payout had been very recent then maybe I would take a different view but 10 years ago you were acting as a financial unit and presumably had paid for the policy from the joint purse. I had a payout when I was married but it simply did not occur to me to include this in the divorce waltz.
The fact that you have MS obviously puts you at a financial disadvantage and I can see the thinking that says you should get the lions share of any benefit that derives from it but 10 years is a long time ago. When it comes to dividing up the value of a house there is something called beneficial interest which allows one half of a partnership to show that they made substantial contributions to the home and are entitled to some of the value even if their name is not on the deeds - but this does not seem to be the case here.
Your husband could argue that you enjoyed the proceeds of the policy because for 10 years you made significantly reduced mortgage payments and therefore had more money in the monthly budget. It’s somewhat similar to the partner with the highest wages saying they deserve a bigger slice of the pie. Divorce is a line in the sand. Going back over every purchase is the road to unhappiness (for example I resent the fact that my exes new wife eats her dinner off plate I paid for but there you go)
I hope it all turns out without too much pain and stress.
jane