Splitting the house

Today, someone sent in a question asking if the spouse gets the kids, will she also get the house?

It's quite possible.

Judges try to be fair in splitting up the property. The split should be "equitable," and that's why we call it "equitable distribution."

Theoretically, then, since things are supposed to be "equitable," the spouse who gets the house should have to buy out the spouse that doesn't get the house. (This is assuming the house was purchased after the marriage. Property purchased before the marriage is treated in a completely different way.) How does the spouse keeping the house "buy out" the other spouse? Usually it means that the spouse keeping the house gets less of the other property than the spouse who is not getting the house. For instance, if the house has no mortgage and is worth $200,000, maybe the spouse who is not getting the house would get an extra $100,000 worth of stock that was purchased during the marriage. The $100k would be considered the buyout. One spouse gets the other spouse's half of the house--that half being worth $100,000--but the spouse getting the house gives up $100,000 worth of stock.

But what if there isn't any other property? What if the house is all the couple owns? That happens a lot. Usually, when this happens, judges will then order the buyout to be made in payments over time. The spouse keeping the house would make monthly payments until the other spouse was bought out.

But what if the spouse keeping the house can't afford the payments to be made over time to the other spouse? This is where it can get ugly. Occassionally, if the judge really wants the kids to be in the house and doesn't want to force the sale of the house, the judge will simply give the house to the spouse who is getting the kids. This means that the spouse who is not getting custody of the kids just plain gets ripped off. It's rare, but I have seen it happen.