What a fait way to separate the house after a separation?

[Fastfwd]

I will try to make this short:
Separation is under way; I'd say 80% likely at this point but we are seeing couple counseling.

House was bought by me 13 years ago at 136k with 21k cash down.
Wife came in 6 months later and we have been paying each our things so we can consider that half was paid by both.
but
in the last few years I got a huge bonus at work and put 75k$ down on the mortgage; it was cleared a few months later by normal payments.

So now house is worth about 300k on the market. Let's say 280k after sales commissions/haggling.

I don't think it's fair to split down the middle because I've put 15% cash down + land transfer fees at the start.
I also don't think it's fair to have that recent(3 years ago) bonus split 50/50

I made some quick calculations and it seems like the ballpark would be a 33%/66% split my way. This will seem horrible to her as her feeling is that we were always both been paying for everything. Then again a 50/50 split would unfair to me and I would end up with a new higher mortgage of 140k then the one I had 13 years ago at 115k!

Law does not enter into this; the house is in my name and we are not married but we have kids and I want to find a fair compromise.

[Insanity]

Law does matter to a degree.  And if she was a stay at home mom, your salary and bonus is less important.

In all honesty, if push came to shove, I would give up the house for other concessions (401k rights, alimony, child support). 

If it ever came down to it, my wife would rather have the cash now from the proceeds of the sale than the split of the 401K.  Even though the 401K is about 2X as much.

[matchewed]

Law does not enter into this; the house is in my name and we are not married but we have kids and I want to find a fair compromise.

The law does enter into this. Your wife has been using her money to pay the mortgage as well. It will depend on your local state laws or if you can find an amicable method using lawyers.

If you are 80% sure of divorce then you should probably start talking more about how you will divorce, the combative method is each of you hiring divorce lawyers. The amicable method would be if you both hire the same lawyer as a mediator.

[Fastfwd]

The law does enter into this. Your wife has been using her money to pay the mortgage as well. It will depend on your local state laws or if you can find an amicable method using lawyers.

The "common law spouse" law in Quebec states that everything that was mine before is still mine. Everything that was bought together has to be split evenly. There is no alimony or 401k separation but both spouses are required to pay 50% of the expenses for the kids.

[MayDay]

It sounds like  all the appreciation is joint and should be split.

My opinion is that unless you have both always kept 100% separate finances, your bonus is half hers (just s all of both your income is shared) so the bonus thing is nonsense. 

So basically you should get a tiny bit more to account for the original downpayment, lets say 21K + 13 years of interest at somewhere between 3 and 7 %. 

Asking for 66% of the house makes you come off as a dick, and I would expect her to dig her heals in about everything else if that is your opening move. 

[Fastfwd]

It sounds like  all the appreciation is joint and should be split.

My opinion is that unless you have both always kept 100% separate finances, your bonus is half hers (just s all of both your income is shared) so the bonus thing is nonsense. 

So basically you should get a tiny bit more to account for the original downpayment, lets say 21K + 13 years of interest at somewhere between 3 and 7 %. 

Asking for 66% of the house makes you come off as a dick, and I would expect her to dig her heals in about everything else if that is your opening move.

That's a fair assessment but I would think it's fair to split from my original % instead of arbitrary interest rate on the 21k$. So the original 15% would still be mine and we split the remaining 85% down the middle without regards for my bonus since finances were always common.  I end up with 280*15%=42k + we split 238k for 119k each. If I want to keep the house I take on a new mortgage for 119k to pay her and I end up slightly behind from 13 years ago when the mortgage was 115k. It's one of those things that looked at from a way is fair but looked at from another way is completely unfair since I end up with a higher mortgage after all those payments.

[justajane]

The split you talk about could come across as an aggressive move at the start, especially in light of what you assume are her expectations. I would worry about creating an adversarial process and thereby losing more than the money you are talking about in the house.

Also, what are your expectations for your kids? I think that would be first and foremost in my head. I'm not saying be a doormat, but also don't foster a situation that will make negotiation on how often you see your kids more difficult than it could have been.

[Gray Matter]

It sounds like  all the appreciation is joint and should be split.

My opinion is that unless you have both always kept 100% separate finances, your bonus is half hers (just s all of both your income is shared) so the bonus thing is nonsense. 

So basically you should get a tiny bit more to account for the original downpayment, lets say 21K + 13 years of interest at somewhere between 3 and 7 %. 

Asking for 66% of the house makes you come off as a dick, and I would expect her to dig her heals in about everything else if that is your opening move.

That's a fair assessment but I would think it's fair to split from my original % instead of arbitrary interest rate on the 21k$. So the original 15% would still be mine and we split the remaining 85% down the middle without regards for my bonus since finances were always common.  I end up with 280*15%=42k + we split 238k for 119k each. If I want to keep the house I take on a new mortgage for 119k to pay her and I end up slightly behind from 13 years ago when the mortgage was 115k. It's one of those things that looked at from a way is fair but looked at from another way is completely unfair since I end up with a higher mortgage after all those payments.

This, to me, is fair.  You take 15% off the top and split the rest.  If you keep the house, you are buying her out of the fair market value of the house, which has appreciated.  You'll end up with a higher mortgage and so will she if she buys a new house.  That's what separations/divorces do.

[Fastfwd]

Also, what are your expectations for your kids? I think that would be first and foremost in my head. I'm not saying be a doormat, but also don't foster a situation that will make negotiation on how often you see your kids more difficult than it could have been.

We will try our best to stay as friendly as possible. We would aim for a 50/50 split for the kids but will have to make scheduling adaptations. In my line of work being able to be there both morning and afternoon to get the kids to/from school is almost impossible. We are both looking out for the kid's best interests so that does not worry me.

[Cassie]

Sounds fair to me.

[AZDude]

Hard not to make these things personal, but try.

First, You paid $21K and then $75K, allegedly with just "your" money. That is $96K. House is worth $300K, but $180K is appreciation. So the $180K is split evenly, so $90K from the appreciation plus the $96K you already paid. That is $186K. That only leaves like $24K left to be split up. Divide that in half, and you get $198K, she gets $102K. That is close to a 33%/66% split, but that is assuming that the entirety of that $75K bonus was all yours, which is nonsense, IMO. Without hearing the other side of the story its hard to come up a real resolution, but I can try.

Being a neutral arbitrator, and one not necessarily in tune with the most radical feminist ideals, I would say fair would be you getting the $21K and half the appreciation, $90K. That is $111K. Wife is getting $90K from the appeciation. That leaves about $100K left over. Assuming the wife either works or takes care of the kids, but that you make the majority of the income, Ill grant you 2/3rds of the $75K bonus. So you get an extra $50K, she gets the other $25K. That takes you to $161K, "wife" to $115K. That is close to final price after the haggling. I think that is a more fair offer that might be received better, although even then there is a good chance that you end splitting it 50/50.

I'm with the earlier suggestion to just hire a mediator and do your best to just get through everything without the drama.

[The Money Monk]

If the house is in your name:

1. Sell house now, before divorce
2. Buy physical gold with the proceeds
3. Bury gold in secret location
4. Complete divorce proceedings as a pauper
5. party

[CommonCents]

It sounds like  all the appreciation is joint and should be split.

My opinion is that unless you have both always kept 100% separate finances, your bonus is half hers (just s all of both your income is shared) so the bonus thing is nonsense. 

So basically you should get a tiny bit more to account for the original downpayment, lets say 21K + 13 years of interest at somewhere between 3 and 7 %. 

Asking for 66% of the house makes you come off as a dick, and I would expect her to dig her heals in about everything else if that is your opening move.

That's a fair assessment but I would think it's fair to split from my original % instead of arbitrary interest rate on the 21k$. So the original 15% would still be mine and we split the remaining 85% down the middle without regards for my bonus since finances were always common.  I end up with 280*15%=42k + we split 238k for 119k each. If I want to keep the house I take on a new mortgage for 119k to pay her and I end up slightly behind from 13 years ago when the mortgage was 115k. It's one of those things that looked at from a way is fair but looked at from another way is completely unfair since I end up with a higher mortgage after all those payments.

This, to me, is fair.  You take 15% off the top and split the rest.  If you keep the house, you are buying her out of the fair market value of the house, which has appreciated.  You'll end up with a higher mortgage and so will she if she buys a new house.  That's what separations/divorces do.

+1

Unlike AZDude, I don't see a rational argument for why you wouldn't split things down the middle.  In other words, it seems arbitrary to me to take 2/3rds of the bonus if you share finances. 

[AZDude]

We would need more info, but assuming he makes twice as much as her, then splitting 50/50 is unfair IMO, even if the law will probably render that opinion.

[Bob W]

According to you there is a 20% chance.   I would fight like hell to make it an 80% chance.   I'm speaking from experience.  Divorce sucks.

Your counselor is likely to have little success but your commitment to the effort shows me that you are interested in saving the marriage.   If you could hit the easy button that says "save marriage,  make life happy again" I bet you would?

Your lucky because there is a proven successful method for doing so.   

Simply google Willard Harley's web site and books - "His Needs,  Her Needs."    It is pretty much a guaranteed method for reigniting love into your marriage.   The beauty is that you can learn all you need to do the web site.   The other upside is that only you need to follow the steps in order to be successful.  She would not even need to be aware of your efforts but will begin to respond in a positive manner. 

The downside is that you will need to follow the guidance in a hardcore manner and do so for many hours per week for several months before the "love" feelings reemerge in both you and her.   Men typically need to dedicate 30 hours per week to rebuild.

But you did make a "good times,  bad times" commitment up front.  So I would think that saving this marriage may be worth the 300 initial hours you would need to put into it. 

Good luck!

[CommonCents]

We would need more info, but assuming he makes twice as much as her, then splitting 50/50 is unfair IMO, even if the law will probably render that opinion.

I didn't see where he wrote that he makes twice what she does, but even so, the key in my comment was sharing finances.  If they don't share finances then I think your point makes more sense.  The starting point in any negotiation is what the law would dictate.  You can then bring to the table compelling arguments to get the other party to deviate from what they are likely to get legally.  Maybe they will agree it is right, or maybe they will think the law would favor him on that point.  He can try to advance this argument, but I and others are suggesting that this isn't as compelling as he thinks it is, and he should always keep in mind the broader picture (i.e. if he wins here, will he lose the battle on joint custody, or will it turn from amicable to hostile, harming the kids?) and how willing he is to risk these possible scenarios.

FWIW, I think you have a legitimate argument that buying costs you shouldered should be split.

and btw, a bonus 3 years ago isn't that recent.

[iknowiyam]

According to you there is a 20% chance.   I would fight like hell to make it an 80% chance.   I'm speaking from experience.  Divorce sucks.

Your counselor is likely to have little success but your commitment to the effort shows me that you are interested in saving the marriage.   If you could hit the easy button that says "save marriage,  make life happy again" I bet you would?

Your lucky because there is a proven successful method for doing so.   

Simply google Willard Harley's web site and books - "His Needs,  Her Needs."    It is pretty much a guaranteed method for reigniting love into your marriage.   The beauty is that you can learn all you need to do the web site.   The other upside is that only you need to follow the steps in order to be successful.  She would not even need to be aware of your efforts but will begin to respond in a positive manner. 

The downside is that you will need to follow the guidance in a hardcore manner and do so for many hours per week for several months before the "love" feelings reemerge in both you and her.   Men typically need to dedicate 30 hours per week to rebuild.

But you did make a "good times,  bad times" commitment up front.  So I would think that saving this marriage may be worth the 300 initial hours you would need to put into it. 

Good luck!

Agreed! I know you are not married, but you should pretend this is a full-blown divorce situation because there are kids and a house involved.

My advice: Get off the mustache forum and think about how to improve your relationship and your life instead. Set finances aside, since that will only be an issue if you actually do decide to split. Meditate. See a counselor individually to give more perspective to the couples counseling. Hike to the top of a mountain and contemplate. Do whatever turns the subject away from finances and separation planning.

Maybe I am on the wrong track here, but you don't seem to have anything bad to say about her (or your have a lot of respect for her not to lay it all out). Are you sure this relationship is really the problem?

I love a good break-up song. Divorce is sometimes necessary. That being said, have you really thought this through other than financially?

[frompa]

Fastfwd: You (and she) are the only ones who can decide whether the relationship is over, and if it is, it is.  I wouldn't underestimate the value to you both of remaining amicable through your split.  You have children, and therefore you will always have a relationship.  So, that being said, I would recommend you both commit to rationality as the basis for your division of stuff.  Put most simply, the numbers don't lie. 
There is a tremendous amount of emotion around splitting up, but if you can both agree on ground rules that take this into account, you two are better positioned than ANYone else to figure this out in the way that will most likely best serve you as individuals and your children.  Examples:  Put all proposals for division of property first in writing, including articulated reasons for why you propose what you do; give each other plenty of time to consider options before discussing; when discussing, if either of you gets too overwhelmed, take a break, however long a break is necessary, for the emotion to die down; don't be afraid to discuss the role of emotion, but don't let it make the decisions (i.e., 'Your proposal seems unfair to me because I think after all the years we spent together acting and spending like a single spending unit, it's not right that now you pull out of your pocket "mine" and "yours."' -- or 'Unless we agree on house division that credits me for the actual contributions I made, I will be stuck with the same mortgage as I had starting out, and that feels wrong to me.')  You get the drift. You must be honest with yourself -- keep a journal or talk to a neutral friend or counselor regularly, if those things help you to be honest with yourself.  You may have to communicate more to successfully separate than you ever had to to stay together, but don't give up -- the stakes are very high for your long term mental health.  And it can be done. 
If you agree to things out of guilt or simply because you fear the other's reactions, those issues may haunt your relationship for years to come.  You have to be completely fair to yourselves and to each other. 
Best of luck.  Separation is painful and can be a long process, but the issues can be resolved.

[Cycling Stache]

I only ask because of the forum you posted in . . .

Is Mr. Money Mustache ruining your marriage?

[DoubleDown]

I've been divorced and was significantly and unfairly raked over the coals financially for the sake of child custody and because I had a greedy ex. I mention this because if someone was inclined to argue in favor of the OP's position, I'd likely be it. Having said that, I think the situation the OP describes deserves a 50-50 split. There is so much commingling of funds regarding the house, I think it would be unfair to argue for anything other than 50-50, and trying to tease apart every dollar of who contributed what would be unwise. The children's welfare and the relationship between the parents will both benefit from a simple split. I also do not think it is fair to consider earnings/bonuses that were put towards the house as "mine" or "hers."

[mm1970]

It sounds like  all the appreciation is joint and should be split.

My opinion is that unless you have both always kept 100% separate finances, your bonus is half hers (just s all of both your income is shared) so the bonus thing is nonsense. 

So basically you should get a tiny bit more to account for the original downpayment, lets say 21K + 13 years of interest at somewhere between 3 and 7 %. 

Asking for 66% of the house makes you come off as a dick, and I would expect her to dig her heals in about everything else if that is your opening move.

That's a fair assessment but I would think it's fair to split from my original % instead of arbitrary interest rate on the 21k$. So the original 15% would still be mine and we split the remaining 85% down the middle without regards for my bonus since finances were always common.  I end up with 280*15%=42k + we split 238k for 119k each. If I want to keep the house I take on a new mortgage for 119k to pay her and I end up slightly behind from 13 years ago when the mortgage was 115k. It's one of those things that looked at from a way is fair but looked at from another way is completely unfair since I end up with a higher mortgage after all those payments.

Mathematically, this is the most fair.

Separation/ divorce, especially when kids are involved is NEVER fair - suck it up and stay together, or figure it's the cost of separation.  When you split households, EVERYONE'S standard of living goes down.  Cry me a river.

[CheapskateWife]

Perhaps the 50/50 split on the house results in a higher mortgage but gains you leverage for a reduced expectation (if any) of child support and a beneficial custodial arrangement.

If my DH came to me with your original plan, I would want to rip his eyeballs out, especially if you consider that your career successes were in part because you had your partner to rely on.  Now with this proposal, you negate that value she brought to the table and play yours vs mine.  Not cool.

So, if I were you, I would propose 50/50 everything.  House, visitation, and no child support.  Joint custodial parenting!!!!!  That one is key.  You each provide for the children in your own homes; not in the other person's home.  Share daycare expenses, share the cost of summer camp...everything.  Handing over cash for these items (in the form of child support) will make it more and more difficult for you as their father to have a voice in their lives.   He/she who has the $, has the control.

I strongly encourage you to consider what other posters have said here too...you might feel like its not fair that your mortgage will go up, but her expenses are going to go up too.  Consider that, my friend.  This isn't one of you raking the other over the coals, you are trying to get to a new normal after thoroughly entwining your lives.  That is going to be painful.  Handle it with grace and patience.

[JLR]

I'm really curious to see how this all pans out. The laws there seem quite different to here in Australia.

If my husband and I were to separate all of our assets would likely be split 50/50. It doesn't matter that I haven't worked since 3 months after we married (12 years ago). A good percentage of his superannuation (401k) would be transferred into my retirement account. Some quick sums show that I have probably earned 0.005% of the income in our household since we married, but I would receive probably receive 50% or more of everything - because we are in a relationship. I may be entitled to more than 50% because I have supported him to be able to work outside the home (and have been available to allow him to be able to work on an on-call basis for the past 12 years, 24/7 for 9 years of that time), and he would retain those skills post-separation allowing him a greater earning power, at least in the short-term.

And in Australia the same would hold even if we were in a de facto relationship. So long as we "have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis" (even for a short time), it is split the same was as if we were married.

As others have said, decide whether you want to split or whether it is worth trying to save your relationship. If things do end, be careful how you approach discussions of splitting assets. Decide what is most important to you and push for that, but get a professional in to help you with the negotiations.

[former player]

OP: your question leaves out the most important housing question of all, which is: where are your children going to live?  They are going to be your children for the rest of your life, and if you think that they will not remember and care about what happens in this separation for the rest of your and their lives then you are kidding yourself big time.

The least unsettling thing for them would probably be for them to continue either full or part time in their current home with one or other parent.  That would be the least disruptive to their education, friendships, hobbies, pets (if any) and daily routine.  If you can't make that happen, then a second home close to the current one and frequent visits back "home" is the next best option.  Can you make that happen?

Financially, I agree that taking out the % for your initial deposit and splitting the rest 50/50 would be your starting point.   If you are making proposals about splitting the house value, you at the same time need to spell out what it means in terms of who lives where and how you both afford it.

Remember that it would be possible to agree a split in the value of the house now but agree not to sell until the youngest kid is 18, which preserves the family home for the kids while they are in the greatest need of it.

[Goldielocks]

My two bits.

In a common law state, with over 10 years together, the split looks like this:

1) House - you keep $22k or so, that you put in before wife moved in. You keep any inheritance money that you did not co-mingle.

2) Split 401K value, house value, etc down the middle.  50% of the remaining capital assets and investments / retirement (including SS credits) are split between you.   (Best to sell house to establish a "real" capital value, most of the time one person alone can't carry it anyway)

3) Then determine alimony and child support, as required.

Is this fair?  Not really if the reason you are splitting is if you are tired of supporting someone who treats you badly, does nothing for home or kids, earns no income, and goes out to party  / gamble  / do drugs all day.  But the way it was explained to me, is that the courts have a horrible time figuring out or judging clearly messy stuff like that, but CAN figure out how to split financial assets evenly.

The theory is that after 10 years, one spouse likely contributed fully, but in non monetary ways, to the household income and earning potential of the other spouse.  It assumes that they would have earned a lot more money on their own, if they did not live with the spouse, so "gave up" some of that.

So, if many states are "common law" states, and use this as the "fair" way to split, why would you think differently?

Alimony and child support are quite high in my region too.  You can pay child support while still having kids 50% of the time, if the other spouse has a lower income.  So high, in fact, that it is enough to re-commit a person to those marriage counselling sessions...

[RetiredAt63]

You are common-law in Quebec - Quebec technically does not recognize common law.  Remember this? http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/eric-lola-ruling-scoc-rules-common-law-couples-have-fewer-rights-1.1129158

If I were living with someone in Quebec, I would keep my finances strictly separate, or have a very clear and detailed cohabitation agreement.  Especially if I was making financial sacrifices (i.e. SAHM and loss of career/pension/etc.). The scary thing is, cohabitation is extremely common in Quebec, and people think civil law is similar to the other provinces - it isn't, it originated in the old French civil code (pre-Napoleonic).

However, better to save the relationship if possible.  If not, a good mediator is your best option - a good one knows both law and precedent and can get you through all aspects, not just financial.

[2Birds1Stone]

According to you there is a 20% chance.   I would fight like hell to make it an 80% chance.   I'm speaking from experience.  Divorce sucks.

Your counselor is likely to have little success but your commitment to the effort shows me that you are interested in saving the marriage.   If you could hit the easy button that says "save marriage,  make life happy again" I bet you would?

Your lucky because there is a proven successful method for doing so.   

Simply google Willard Harley's web site and books - "His Needs,  Her Needs."    It is pretty much a guaranteed method for reigniting love into your marriage.   The beauty is that you can learn all you need to do the web site.   The other upside is that only you need to follow the steps in order to be successful.  She would not even need to be aware of your efforts but will begin to respond in a positive manner. 

The downside is that you will need to follow the guidance in a hardcore manner and do so for many hours per week for several months before the "love" feelings reemerge in both you and her.   Men typically need to dedicate 30 hours per week to rebuild.

But you did make a "good times,  bad times" commitment up front.  So I would think that saving this marriage may be worth the 300 initial hours you would need to put into it. 

Good luck!

If you read the whole OP, they are not married.

[cripes7]

If my husband came to me, who's given birth to 5 kids, worked but not at his salary level, and told me that after 13 years that he wants 66% of the house proceeds because he was there first, I'd make the split so miserable he'd wish he'd never opened his mouth. Splitting up means everyone loses financially. Two homes, double expenses, and so on. You're not supposed to come out better off than 13 yrs ago, that's what happens when you split a household. So until you can carry those kids and give birth, figure that bonus 3 frigging years ago was your financial contribution to that. Then split the equity equitably for the mother of your children.

Can you tell your whole premise has infuriated me?

[Tabaxus]

You have kids and you're honestly going to try to pick nits about a bonus you got three years ago?  Or, for that matter, the down payment?  FFS.

[urbanista]

In my line of work being able to be there both morning and afternoon to get the kids to/from school is almost impossible. We are both looking out for the kid's best interests so that does not worry me.

So she did way more child care than you, and will continue into the future, so that to enable you get that f---g bonus.

In Australia, she would get 66% of the house plus child care support on top of that if you currently earn more. Yes, with 50/50 legal custody you would be paying her child support while getting 33% of the house. That's because physical custody is not going to be 50/50. For 50/50 physical custody, both parents must do 50% of the work. Which you didn't do and can't do in the future.

My vote is the arrangement that you propose is grossly unfair. If my husband ever suggested this to me, I would turn things to be very nasty for him.

That said, I contributed more $$$ into our household both before and after the marriage, and also did more child rearing. Still in case of divorce, I would go for a 50/50 split.

[southern granny]

Also, what are your expectations for your kids? I think that would be first and foremost in my head. I'm not saying be a doormat, but also don't foster a situation that will make negotiation on how often you see your kids more difficult than it could have been.

We will try our best to stay as friendly as possible. We would aim for a 50/50 split for the kids but will have to make scheduling adaptations. In my line of work being able to be there both morning and afternoon to get the kids to/from school is almost impossible. We are both looking out for the kid's best interests so that does not worry me.

Of course we don't know the specifics, but if you are both sincerely looking out for the kids best interest, you would be looking at ways to save the relationship instead of splitting up the assets.

[Insanity]

Also, what are your expectations for your kids? I think that would be first and foremost in my head. I'm not saying be a doormat, but also don't foster a situation that will make negotiation on how often you see your kids more difficult than it could have been.

We will try our best to stay as friendly as possible. We would aim for a 50/50 split for the kids but will have to make scheduling adaptations. In my line of work being able to be there both morning and afternoon to get the kids to/from school is almost impossible. We are both looking out for the kid's best interests so that does not worry me.

Of course we don't know the specifics, but if you are both sincerely looking out for the kids best interest, you would be looking at ways to save the relationship instead of splitting up the assets.

It takes two to save a relationship.  There are also cases where just staying is worse for the kids.

[Jags4186]

Really depends on the laws where you live.

I live in a community property state.  If you do, you're going to split almost everything down the middle save non-commingled inheritances.

[Fastfwd]

We are both looking out for the kids. We would move close to keep school and friends. We will always pay 50/50 for everything kid related. It's the law here and also just makes sense.

A lot of people assumed she did all the child rearing. We both worked and made similar salaries; I made more but no pension while she has defined benefits. After RRSP we have the same money in our pockets. We would split everything bought together.

The house I had before. I will never inherit anything while her dying parents have a lot. She cheated on me. How unfair does it look now to hang on to my share of the house?

[Zamboni]

You had the house 6 MONTHS before she joined you there, and I assume you were dating at that time. You have since been living together for 13 years and have children together. Even though you say child care has been equal, based upon my lifetime of experience and some of what you have written, I'm still assuming that she took the brunt of the childcare (like drop off and/or pick up at school), which enabled you to focus more on your career while enjoying the benefits of a family. Was your paternity leave as long as her maternity leave?

This is going to sound harsh: Guess what, you are not married, so I don't think the law will care that she "cheated." Some laws provide protection for a spouse who is cheated upon, but you never married her and it doesn't sound like you had a cohabitation or domestic contract either. So, while you have my sympathy as clearly you are hurt over her behavior, it probably isn't going to be a factor at all in the division of property or child custody. But I am not an expert in Quebec law (and neither are you), so please consult someone who is and let them explain how it works.

What you are suggesting in your OP sounds ridiculous to me. Consult a professional mediator or attorney, fill out their forms indicating all of your assets and debts, and let them tell you what is fair. If you do eventually decide to split, then she should hire her own family law person to help her understand what is fair (which will likely be a different picture from what you propose is fair). And then bring your respective legal consultants to a one day mediation session run by a neutral third party who guides you both in what is really fair and you should be done by the end of that day. Because I assure you that your original ideas about property separation are selfish, not fair, and could lead to a bitter, drawn out process if you do split.

[Merrie]

Who wants the split? You because she cheated? She because she met someone else and realized what is out there? Or neither of you really but you're playing out the script for what happens after someone cheats?

It sounds like you are putting your own feelings way ahead of hers and not really thinking about the kids. A lot of focus here on how to get what's coming to you. If being more 50-50 about this split would be better for your ongoing relationship with her, that would be better for your relationship with the kids too, but you seem to be giving that only lip service. Is putting your feelings ahead of hers part of the problem in your relationship? After 13 years and kids splitting because someone cheated and/or you're going through a rough patch... Unless the relationship is an unmitigated disaster it may be salvageable and I would try my level best to do that first. You may be really upset with her for cheating now (why'd she do it?) but if she is sorry and wants to try again, the relationship isn't necessarily dead yet.

[Fastfwd]

I was looking only for financial advice here. I could keep it all by law but that's clearly unfair. I was looking for impartial money advice because I am too close to this.

You people assume/project a lot. I also took the kids to school. She got 1 year full salary maternity leave and I got 5 weeks half salary. I made a cash down payment on the house and we were not dating at the time.

The bonus is what is debatable because it was earned while together.

[Cycling Stache]

I was looking only for financial advice here. I could keep it all by law but that's clearly unfair. I was looking for impartial money advice because I am too close to this.

You people assume/project a lot. I also took the kids to school. She got 1 year full salary maternity leave and I got 5 weeks half salary. I made a cash down payment on the house and we were not dating at the time.

The bonus is what is debatable because it was earned while together.

True.  There is a lot of non-financial advice here.  For me, the short answer is your law is the default, and you need to know that as a starting point.  The big picture that I believe most people are getting at is that with the amount of time you lived together and the presence of kids, giving up $15-$20k that you might have a claim to in order to have a more equitable split and (hopefully) a less antagonistic separation may be money well spent.  Otherwise, it's easy for both sides to get entrenched in what he/she believes is fair, and then it's a bitter fight from there.

[CommonCents]

+1 to Zamboni

OP, here in my jurisdiction (US state), fault largely doesn't matter in divorce in splitting up the assets (exceptions if 1) if a fault based divorce - which I understand is actually hard to prove for infidelity AND 2) the one having the affair wastes the marital assets on the affair (e.g. buys someone diamond bracelets, lavish and frequent hotel rooms, pays rent for their lover's apartment, etc.).

It sucks, but it really doesn't play into division of assets in my jurisdiction - even when the parties are married.

Talk to a professional about what is fair, not internet people who don't know the laws in your jurisdiction.  All I can say is that your division - to arbitrarily get back a one bonus 3 YEARS ago because it was big sum (I haven't really heard another justification/rationale from you on it), and to keep the house for which you both paid and maintained together for 96% of the time you owned it, does not pass the smell test for me.

[MsPeacock]

I was looking only for financial advice here. I could keep it all by law but that's clearly unfair. I was looking for impartial money advice because I am too close to this.

You people assume/project a lot. I also took the kids to school. She got 1 year full salary maternity leave and I got 5 weeks half salary. I made a cash down payment on the house and we were not dating at the time.

The bonus is what is debatable because it was earned while together.

True.  There is a lot of non-financial advice here.  For me, the short answer is your law is the default, and you need to know that as a starting point.  The big picture that I believe most people are getting at is that with the amount of time you lived together and the presence of kids, giving up $15-$20k that you might have a claim to in order to have a more equitable split and (hopefully) a less antagonistic separation may be money well spent.  Otherwise, it's easy for both sides to get entrenched in what he/she believes is fair, and then it's a bitter fight from there.

+1 - and you could end up in court spending far more than 15-20k on lawyers to settle custody issues, even if the financial stuff somehow doesn't matter (not sure how the law works on that since you aren't married but shared assets). Would you rather give the 15k to your ex (and your children will benefit from that money) or to lawyers.

Speaking as someone whose ex dragged every single possible thing to court - 5 times now since the divorce was finalized - and absolutely will not settle or mediate or discuss - this is so bad for the children and for the emotional health of everyone around them.

P.S. - You aren't going to think anything about this is "fair" by the time it is done, same w/ your ex, and most definitely the kids. Just look to minimize hurt and damage to your children.

[cchrissyy]

Talk to a professional about what is fair, not internet people who don't know the laws in your jurisdiction.  All I can say is that your division - to arbitrarily get back a one bonus 3 YEARS ago because it was big sum (I haven't really heard another justification/rationale from you on it), and to keep the house for which you both paid and maintained together for 96% of the time you owned it, does not pass the small test for me.

Exactly this.  Go get a legal consult and find out what is likely to happen, in terms of laws and money, if you split. Know what to expect before you make any big decisions.

Don't propose this house split unless a lawyer tells you it is fair, legal, realistic, AND you don't mind making your relationship and negotiations worlds more combative than they were going to be.

I've been through an uncommonly peaceful and fair split (3 kids, 12 years, divorce).  Nobody "came out ahead", it's expensive to go from 1 home to 2, but at least we kept things cooperative and out of court. Because that was our priority. And I do think, years later, that our detached-but-cooperative relationship has served our kids much better than an oppositional one.

[Fastfwd]

Thanks all. I think what I am taking away from this is to stop looking for fair and to look for the best outcome taking into account other non financial factors.

[Goldielocks]

From a financial planning perspective, start by assuming every asset is split 50/50;

And if you earn more than her, that you will pay alimony for two years such that incomes are equal during that time, and that a small amount of monthly child support is due until they are 19.

If she earns more the reverse is true.

That way. Any decision over that is a fortunate surprise and you don't need to adjust your financial plan.

[urbanista]

The house I had before. I will never inherit anything while her dying parents have a lot. She cheated on me. How unfair does it look now to hang on to my share of the house?

Does not change a thing. Only two things would matter to an Australian court: 13 years of de-facto and kids.

[urbanista]

you could end up in court spending far more than 15-20k on lawyers to settle custody issues, even if the financial stuff somehow doesn't matter (not sure how the law works on that since you aren't married but shared assets). Would you rather give the 15k to your ex (and your children will benefit from that money) or to lawyers.

+1000

In my first marriage, I contributed $36K for a deposit that was earned before I met my ex. He had $10K debts. During marriage we earned roughly the same on average. After the divorce and split of the assets, I got only 45% of all net assets. Why? Because he simply refused to cooperate (no cheating involved). The lawyers estimated that I had a good case and could go to court and fight for my house deposit. Estimated legal fees $25K". I called my ex and suggested that I give him that $25K as a bonus to cooperate and sign the paperwork quickly, the rest to be split 50/50. He agreed and that was it.

There is no such thing as fairness in the property settlement after the relationship breaks down. There is only damage control.

[jsternitzky]

When 2 people marry they become one. No more his and hers, it is all "ours". When you split you now separate and 1 becomes 2 halves. 50/50.

[CommonCents]

I will never inherit anything while her dying parents have a lot. She cheated on me. How unfair does it look now to hang on to my share of the house?

Why the heck does it matter that you won't inherit anything and you expect she will?  That has nothing to do with your lives together.  (In the US, if she kept the inheritance separate and didn't comingle it with marital funds, you generally would keep it anyways.)

And the objections aren't over you hanging onto your share of the house - it's over hanging onto part of her share too.  I think your point that it's not fair and you will stop expecting it to be so is spot on.

[Cathy]

There are many highly dubious legal propositions in this thread and I'm not going to wade through them. I just want to offer an interesting factoid.

Before getting to the factoid, I have to clarify what I mean by "common law jurisdiction". For the purpose of this post, a "common law jurisdiction" is a jurisdiction where the law is derived from the historical law of England. In Canada, every jurisdiction except for Quebec is a common law jurisdiction.

"Common law marriage" is an unrelated term and it refers to a concept that is commonly believed by Canadians to be real but it is impossible to enter into such marriages anywhere in Canada as I've explained in a previous essay and a brief follow up post. So just to be extra clear, when I say "common law" later in this post, I am referring to the English tradition of law, and not to something related to romantic relationships.

Now we can get to the factoid that I wanted to inject into this thread.

In common law jurisdictions, one of the major viable claims against an ex-partner in a romantic partnership (where the partners were not married) is the claim of "unjust enrichment". Unjust enrichment is an equitable claim and so the usual equitable defences are available. See Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., 2004 SCC 25, [2004] 1 SCR 629, at paras 44 (unjust enrichment is equitable remedy) and 43 (courts will "deny recovery where to allow it would be inequitable"). Garland is one of my favourite cases because the factual matrix is entertaining and the opinions contain so many propositions of law on many different topics.

One of principles of equity is that "she who seeks equity must come to Court with clean hands". The Court has discretion to deny, minimise, or vary equitable relief based on objectionable conduct by the parties. See, e.g., KGH v. SLV, 2013 ABQB 326 at para 48. Unclean hands could conceivably include "cheating", although I'll leave it others to explore the details of this body of law. My main point in making this post is to shake up the intuitive notion that wrongful conduct doesn't matter in these kind of cases. (No advice is being offered on OP's situation.)

[RetiredAt63]

@Cathy

Thank you for the perspective - since OP is in Quebec, which has its own civil code, can you comment on that? 

I blame American television (and to a lesser extent books)* on legal misconceptions.  Our Canadian legal system is not the same, and the Quebec civil law can be wildly different from the ROC in some ways.

*Same for personal finances books, different rules here.  Similarly, I only read British gardening books for entertainment, not information, conditions are wildly different.

[partgypsy]

Sounds like, a lot of people are not reading the original post. The couple is not married. The partner cheated. We don't know what else is unmentioned but at the least involves joint residence in a house and mingling of finances, multiple children, etc.

Second, us random readers, do not know, because of married/unmarried aspect, kids involved, and the location and laws of where he is from what is considered legally fair or unfair for a split. Maybe he legally doesn't owe her anything. Maybe it is considered a common law marriage and she is considered to own half. We are guessing. You may have your own beliefs what is ethically fair or not fair, but if the other partner does not agree, that could entail a legal situation, so it is best to know where you are at, regarding your legal obligations. Hence, a good example of when to consult an attorney.