P -v- F 28-Feb-2006

The husband's advocate argued that, because he, alone, was contributing to the mortgage until its redemption, he should acquire a greater share in the equity to the exclusion of the wife, because she will have contributed nothing.

I disagree, for a number of reasons. The first is that the sum of £304.44 represents a surprisingly low figure for the housing costs for three people. It is a benefit which the husband is privileged to enjoy. When the mortgage will be redeemed in 2013, J, the youngest child will only be just short of her 13 th birthday, so thereafter, the husband and two children will occupy the former matrimonial home free of any payment altogether. I suggest in my order that, unless the husband dies or leaves the property, he and the two children can go on living there until J is 16 years of age (another 3 years) or until she's 18 years of age (another 5 years), provided she is still in full-time education. So, if all goes according to plan, the husband will only pay £304.44 per month (£70.25 per week) for seven years, then nothing at all for perhaps another five years.

There is also the fact to bear in mind that the wife did contribute to the deposit of £19,748.52 on the house, when it was purchased in 1988 for £42,500 with a mortgage of £22,751.48. The deposit, I accept, came from a joint savings account at a time when the wife had a good job and was contributing to family finances. However, the husband is now enjoying the home which is worth £290,000 on a "rental" of £304.44.

The wife now occupies a flat on an estate with the oldest child, S. Although she has various debts, she makes ends meet (paying £144 per month rent plus rates and insurance) from a total income of about £1,000 per month. I have no doubt that she is entitled to receive one half of the capital locked up in the former home once the children have no further need of it.

When J reaches 18 years of age in 2018, the parties will respectively be aged 57, (the husband) and 56 (the wife) assuming they are still both alive. Neither has made any provisions for a pension. It would be extraordinary if I were to deprive either party from a half share in the equity when that time comes.

However, it seems to me to be appropriate to order that each party is to remain liable for certain debts, which if they remain unpaid when the house is sold, should be paid out of each party's half share.

There must be a review if either or both C and J should go to live with their mother. There will remain liberty to apply in relation to:-