2007-03-10 12:52:35 · 19 answers · asked by readordead555 1 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
Whoever has the higher priced attorney.
2007-03-10 12:55:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it depends on circumstances, sometimes you can buy your partner out and you can then stay in the house. it depends on if there is children sometimes a court will let whoever has been caring for the children stay in the house with the children until they come of age. Or sometimes a court will decide to sell the home and divide the money and each partner can buy somewhere else. it can also depend on what way the house was bought, who put more money into buying the house, was it equally bought? the main thing a court will look at is the children if there is any, what is best for them.
2007-03-10 21:03:11 · answer #2 · answered by jumbo5555 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually, separation doesn't mean dividing up assets. It's kind of like a trial divorce where one person leaves. Separations don't always lead to divorce either. Sometimes, they can bring the couple back together again. In the case of a divorce though, it depends on what you both agree to. Sometimes one person will buy out the other person's interest in the house and sometimes they will agree that the mother and children can continue living in it so the kids don't have to suffer even more disruption in their lives. Usually, it comes down to a matter of finances.
2007-03-10 20:58:31 · answer #3 · answered by Emily Dew 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you're in the U.S. and the house is martial property...
If there are children then whoever gets custody of the kids is normally awarded the home in the divorce IF THEY CAN AFFORD IT. They will still have to have to give the ex his/her half of the equity. Basically, they’ll have to buy him/her out. And if the ex is smart, he/she will also request that the judge order that the person receiving the house refinance it in their name alone (to get his/her name off the mortgage).
If there are no kids and you can’t decide between yourself then the judge will likely order it to be sold and the proceeds split. In that case, I assume (and I could be wrong) that you can then ‘buy’ it, but if the ex has the same idea, you may end up in a bidding war over it and end up paying more than it’s actually worth.
2007-03-10 21:34:55 · answer #4 · answered by kp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
depends on how the seperation is worked out when my wife seperated from her X husband before we met, she let him have the house, and moved on, he paid her back 50 % of the payments made toward the house willingly. Sometimes splits are easy to work out and sometimes they arent
2007-03-10 21:03:29 · answer #5 · answered by Xander R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The one that keeps the children usually, until they leave full time education, then the house should be sold and shared out. But no doubt the solicitors will put you right.
2007-03-10 20:57:46 · answer #6 · answered by Kirks Folley 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The one who is making the house payments
2007-03-10 21:20:53 · answer #7 · answered by miester44 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whoever can afford to buy the other one out. However if there is children involved, whoever is going to have the main care of them should get to keep it!!
2007-03-10 20:56:32 · answer #8 · answered by cheryl 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the person who has the kids will get on avg 75% of the stuff , possession is 9/10ths of the law , if you are male and in australia , pick a good shirt to have on your back...
if you have no kids , it is pretty even..
2007-03-10 20:57:13 · answer #9 · answered by DSV 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in most cases you have to sell the house ans split the profit. If you have kids though if you are joint owners who ever gets custody of the kids usually gets the house.
2007-03-10 20:55:51 · answer #10 · answered by ♫Rock'n'Rob♫ 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋