50/50 house split before divorce

My estranged wife and I have agreed to sell the matrimonial home and split the equity 50/50. Selling the house is our priority at the moment. We intend to divorce eventually but we aren't in a rush - we want the house out of the way first.

I have been told that even if we sell the house and split the proceeds 50/50, as agreed, when we eventually divorce a judge can pore over the pre-divorce house sale and alter the 50/50 agreement between us. Is this correct?

What if I have spent my half or used it as a deposit on a new house, or done anything with it such that it is not readily available sitting in my bank account waiting for me to transfer another chunk from to my wife? On what basis would a judge intervene and vary an agreement that my wife and I have freely agreed to?

I don't understand why the house sale would even be mentioned in the divorce because by the time we get to the stage of legally ending our marriage, it won't be our asset to split anyway. How would this be referred to in the divorce if it's already sold and split?

It's confusing and I'm cautious to proceed with my original plans now. It's as if a judge's opinion from the outside looking in could put a spanner in the works of what I intended to do with my half of the money and also ruin what has been an amicable separation so far.

This happened to my neighbour.
They split the proceeds (circa £50k each) and a few years later went to finalise things and she had spent all hers on god knows what. His was still in the bank and he had to give her half of his (another £25k). He wasn’t best pleased!

I guess that’s why the new system presses for clean break.

Generally speaking if a marriage has come to an end it is better to dissolve it sooner rather than later and to settle all the financial issues arising from the marriage once for all within the context of that divorce. It is important to understand that if these things are left and it later comes before a court the court will consider financial circumstances as they are at the time of making its decision and all sorts of things can change the longer these things are left. The danger is signalled by the post from Captain above.

And if you really want chapter and verse check out this link to find out what happened to Mr Vince:

[www.goughs.co.uk]

the injustices that the system produces are truly astonishing as seen by the previous two posts.

Thank you for the replies. I was actually thinking of a judge varying the 50:50 house sale split before the divorce, not years after in the event that my wife spends her half. So if it is sold now, as we both want, and split the proceeds 50:50, can a judge pore over that sale before the decree absolute and say, "Even though you both agreed to it this is unfair because your wife has custody of the children and the ratio of the proceeds split should've been in her favour"? Or would the sale not even be mentioned if the house is already sold by the time it gets to the divorce because by that point there won't be a house for us to split?

As for the risk of her coming back to me years down the line for more money if she squanders what we split, can't this be resolved by a consent order as part of the divorce?

>>As for the risk of her coming back to me years down the line for more money if she squanders what we split, can't this be resolved by a consent order as part of the divorce?<<

Yes, but you are not proposing getting a divorce any time soon which is the course of the risks you are running.

Also, incidentally, if, say, a couple say, 'give me half the house and I won't go after your pension' and the just sell the house and split the money accordingly what do you think might happen next if they don't effect that sale within the context of a court order? Very likely it will be, 'Now I want half your pension.'

There are certain practicalities to these things and a lot of leverage can be lost by carrying out significant transactions without a court order being in place.

Understood. I am concerned that despite what you are saying, if I wait until the divorce to sell it, she will end up with a 60:40 or 70:30 split of the equity in her favour because of her lower earnings and primary custody of the kids, even though we have already agreed on 50:50. So this would mean I'd actually be worse off by sorting out the house as part of the divorce, and it could sour relations between me and my wife if we then start bickering over the percentage split when we have managed to keep the separation amicable and straightforward up to now. This is why I was asking whether a pre-divorce house sale would be omitted from mention in the later divorce itself or at least not be scrutinised and varied or rejected by a judge by the time of a divorce as it will no longer be a matrimonial asset. If so, how could it not be preferable for us to get the house sold now so we can be sure to get the 50:50 split we are both happy with?

It might not have been clear in my original post but the house is the only asset that we have to split. I'm self-employed and don't have a pension. My wife doesn't either. We have very little savings and most of my earnings went into the high mortgage. We have agreed so far on a 50:50 split of the house and monthly maintenance for the kids from me. The mortgage is in both our names but I've always paid it in full as she has taken maternity leave at various times and earned less than me. Keeping up all these payments as well as new accommodation for myself is unsustainable. I've now fallen into arrears with the mortgage payments and as my wife could never take it on herself we both want it sold as soon as we can as a matter of priority.


Other than the division of the house equity, there is nothing else for us to potentially bicker over. And we haven't even bickered over that - we've agreed to 50:50. But there could be problems if we sell up and then later this year when we divorce a judge is interfering with what we have done without either of us soliciting it and I end up having to pay another 10 or 20% to her, assuming the house sale money is even sitting untouched in my bank account.

If, say, you sell the house, divide the net proceeds equally, each buy alternative properties and then immediately seek a divorce there probably wouldn't be any problem. The problem is more likely to arise if (a) a long time elapses before you get a divorce and sort out things formally, (b) there is a significant change of circumstance or mind before you get a divorce or (c) one or both of you still has the cash sitting in a bank account. This is not to say that the options are necessarily this clear cut because individual circumstances are infinitely variable but these are the type of factor that needs to be borne in mind.