I'm a little confused: if you're living in this house with your kids, why are you paying child support? In any case, I don't think you should torture yourself about the trauma of moving for your kids. If moving is the better solution overall, your kids will adjust. Kids of all ages move all the time. It can be a great adventure or it can suck, but it's part of life. If you do decide to move, I suggest you present it as a decision you've made based on what's best overall for the family. You can also give your kids a sense of control by involving them in some of the decisions related to the move. Best of luck to you.

$50k net and $10-$15k per year savings, doesn't pencil out to stay.

No comment on sentiment/emotion.

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I do pay child support even though they are with me half of the time - income disparity.

I agree that kids are pretty good about adjusting, and I also agree that involving them in terms of finding a new place is key. However, that's really just one aspect. I'm wondering if I should sell now and pay out over $50K in commissions and costs (probably closer to $60K since I didn't even factor cost of movers) to save $1,000-$1,500 per month. Does it make sense financially or should I stick it out, borrow, do a second mortgage or 401K loan or whatever it takes to be clear after 32 months (2 years 8 months)?

Even after the 32 months are up, your expenses would still be higher in your current place than in a smaller one. The real-estate fees and land transfer taxes will apply sooner or later, unless you plan to never sell, so I wouldn't factor those costs in.

If it were me I would move, because I don't like living at the limit of my means, and having an extra $1,000-$1,500 per month would give me a lot of freedom. Also, I prefer [EDITED] small houses to large ones. I can't speak for you, though.

This is a response on the 'emotional' side of things. My parents divorced when I was six. I am now a Senior. My DM killed herself to keep our house. Looking back, she and I would both have done better to 'move on'. The house was a constant reminder of 'what might have been' and 'what had gone wrong'.

A house is an object. A home is where you make memories and that can be done anywhere.

If you're constantly stressed over paying for the house, what kind of memories will be made in the house?

What is the total amount of 32 months alimony? Can you pay it off in one lump sum (for example with savings) and put yourself in the position at the end of 32 months that may help you to see things clearly and manage expense easier?

Is your home more important for the kids comparing to where they live during the other half of the time? In other words, do they look forward to coming home after each stay at their mother's place? How will they adjust to new neighbors, new place, new environment, new friends?

Will you rent or buy after you sell the current home and give up the $60K? Remember you still need money to find a rental or a smaller place to buy which will eat into your leftover equity after selling your home.

Will your current house give you more upside potential if you stick it out? It may make sense to suffer through short term pain (32 months) for long term gain?

The first thing I would do is look around at downsized properties in which you're actually interested and then run the numbers. You may find you don't save anywhere near as much as you think you will. Location greatly affects sale price, local taxes, insurance costs, and you'll likely still need to come up with cash for closing and for those smaller things (like window treatments) that a new place entails. DW and I have considered downsizing for years and our window shopping in our desired area doesn't look like it will save us a dime over what we're spending now.

If you're still saving that kind of money after finding some candidates, then I would move sooner than later. If the septic is going to fail, let it fail on someone else. Whenever you sell the house, you'll pay RE commission; it'll be a bigger number on a more expensive house. And there's no guarantee you'll pick up as much equity as you think in coming months. Not to get too political, but the economy isn't as good as the numbers suggest and things can happen well beyond your control that affect the equity you hope to pull out of the house.

The kids will manage, especially if you can stay somewhere close to where you are now and if you ask for their input in a new place.

I moved when my older two were 14 and 11. It was a relocation, so a big move. It was hard for the older child, who had to start high school in a new place, but we managed and they have friends now. Is it possible to downsize and stay in the same schools? That makes it pretty easy. All they lose is their rooms and maybe the direct neighborhood.

I like the above suggestion of looking at houses available for sale in your area and seeing if anything appeals. You can save that $1K a month for longer than those 32 months if you don't need the space. I'd be tempted to let it go if I could sell at any sort of profit and be able to afford something else.

Sell and move. Kids are resilient. We lived in 23 houses by the time I was 17. Dad was a pilot, but he also just liked to move. All 4 of us kids turned out fine.

The only caveat i would add is to try not to make kids change high schools their senior yr if it can be helped. It's too disruptive then.

I would look at what is available to downsize to, and how much would it actually cost for the next property. Down payment, closing costs, moving expenses, etc.

Run some actual numbers instead of hypotheticals.

I would definitely look into moving. I like the suggestion to do some research on possible neighborhoods to help you weigh the finances. I'd also interview a few real estate agents to get a market analysis of the value of your home and what repairs would be recommended. Once you have all the facts I think you will know what you should do.

I moved when I was divorced, my kids were 14 and 17. We were able to stay in the same school district, which was important to the kids. They missed our old neighborhood, as did I, but we all adjusted. It isn't ideal but people move all the time for many reasons, look at military families that move every couple of years.

Teenagers have a lot of big expenses. Things like insurance for teenage drivers, sports, school trips, prom, and of course college expenses. Because I didn't have that big mortgage payment I was able to afford a lot of these extras for my kids.

My kids were my biggest concern. Aside from the impact on them though, moving out of the marital home and being financially secure has helped me get past the feelings of failure about the end of my marriage.

FWIW here the buyer pays the transfer taxes.

Good luck with everything.

Thank you all for the suggestions. Yes, I have looked at homes in the price range needed for a downsize - they are homes in my same town so there's the benefit of that. Actually, their mother is in the same town so there would be no danger at this point of changing schools even if I moved to a nearby town (which is an option). While there is not a great deal of inventory in the price range, the homes are workable and when I run the numbers for mortgage and taxes and such it comes out to a range of $1,000-$1,200 per month less overall. Currently my house is a large center hall colonial. Our wonderful NJ taxes are at $14,000 per year and the house has a pool, nice yard, etc. Great neighborhood on a cul de sac. It would go for around $479K according to my agent or near that. The price range I'm looking into is around the $280-$290K area and in those homes the taxes are less too. Yes, makes for a tighter fit, no in-ground pool, and their rooms won't be as "epic" as they are now, but this is the nature of divorce I'm afraid. The idea of both parties "living in the style they've become accustomed" is just a farce. I've given them three years already in the house where they've had an oasis of normalcy (yes, mine in the home they love to come to as it has the comfort of familiarity), so I hope that's enough. I am leaning toward the move simply because I will still provide a HOME for them no matter where, and it would allow us to actually maybe do things like a vacation without major stressing as to how it would ever be paid. Also, while I have been saving for college for them, those costs are something we'll have to face up to soon.

The only other caveat here is the market. The value of the home has come up nicely since I bought my ex out of it three years ago. Would I be giving up a further move upward in the market?

Upon edit: The Realty Transfer Fee (RTF) is covered by the seller and is based on the sale price of the home. Just another way the lovely state of NJ gets to tax its residents.

This indecision's bugging me.

If you don't want me, set me free.

(sorry, this child of the 80's couldn't resist)

The only thing I'd add to this is the question: once the kids are gone do you intend to downsize? If so, then you'll have all those transaction costs at some point, so I'd bite the bullet sooner rather than later. If you'd stay where you're at until retirement or a job relocation, then factor the transaction costs into the equation.

Finally, on your question about riding the equity wave, it's best to sell when it's going up. I'd do that rather than attempt to time the market. When you're ready to sell in 8 years (or whatever), we might be in another downturn. Jump off the big house ride and onto a smaller house ride and you'll still get the benefits of any market appreciation.

So I am going to try to help in a different way.

Many people overvalue equity. Equity is financial position (wealth) it is not cash flows and the only way to spend it is to lose it. Equity is safety, the more equity you have the better you can endure downturns (you clearly demonstrate this as you are considering tapping your equity to make it through the next little bit) If that is the route you decide, then don't feel bad, equity is worthless unless you use it.

Equity is not useful in any other way. If you don't have money then having a lot of wealth is useless. I don't care how rich you are, if you are in a desert trying to buy a bottle of water, whether your house is worth $50 or $50 million, you are going to be thirsty without some money. But don't give up security lightly, you are currently able to contemplate your options because of it and it takes more work to get than money. However, life is too short to be miserable just so you can feel a bit more secure. And it is way too short to be miserable just to avoid a loss.

In the end, forget about gains and losses in the real world all that is mostly useless. Think instead of differential costs (tangible and intangible). Will your life be better in a house with a little less security but more money to do things every month, or will your life be better in this house with less money every month but keeping that equity for tomorrow. In the end, that is the real difference. Answer the question for the next year, the next 5 years and the next 15 years. To me, losing equity and gaining equity are far inferior to just living comfortably.

Edit: As for riding equity up...It is mostly useless. Yes your house value goes up, but so does the one you are buying. While yours may go up more, the other house takes less from your pocket every month to go up.

The state of your RE market has no bearing if you're selling and buying within the same market.

Since their mother resides in the kids' school district, could you save by moving out of that school district?

Where will you live once the children are in college? Can you make one move, rather than one now and one in four to seven years? Is renting an option? (I've seen kids happy to have 'a country mom' and 'a city dad'.)

The state of your RE market has no bearing if you're selling and buying within the same market.

This is not a bad way to think of it but also not quite correct in the OP's situation. Even if all segments and areas of the market increase steadily you will get more money from a more expensive home. A 5% increase on a $500,000 home is twice as much as a 5% increase on a $250,000 home.

If you move now, you would lose $60k immediately and the future growth potential of your current house.

It will take 50 months for you to recoup the loss if you indeed could save $1200/month (assume you will save the amount instead of just spend it on vacation...etc.). In other words, at the 33rd month, you will be in a smaller house, using the alimony you do not have to pay to recoup the loss sooner.

If you stay, you have the choice of using the equity on the house for any short term needs. At the 33rd month, all the amount for alimony will be available for you.

Being an education-fanatic, I am struggling over your tuition savings. In MHO, it should not be the problem all for you to face, the mother should have to share it too.

Have you looked to see what sort of houses are out there at all? You might find something that you really like, or decide that you hate them all. Either way, it helps in decision-making.

Can the length of time to pay back your mortgage be increased?

Could you stand to take in a tenant? Please, not your ex-wife : O

Whatever you decide to do, DO NOT touch your 401k. Your kids can get grants, scholarships and loans for college. Nobody, but nobody, is going to give you a loan for retirement.

The best gift you can give your kids is to not be dependent upon them helping you financially as you age!

Can you sublet a room?

Depending on where your kids go to college, it may actually be financially beneficial to have high mortgage payments, i.e. home payments count as deductible expenses when calculating financial aid (a certain school in NJ).

nosoccermom, it would depend on who's considered the primary parent. So if the wife is the primary, then he wouldn't be able to deduct.

I'm not talking about FAFSA.

Actually for the FAFSA the parental income that is considered is the parent where the child spends the most time (even in a 50/50 split is there one night more where the child stays). For most private schools they use the CSS profile in addition to the FAFSA and this includes all parental income.

Actually for the FAFSA the parental income that is considered is the parent where the child spends the most time (even in a 50/50 split is there one night more where the child stays).

Yes in a 50/50 split, that is how it's considered but if there is an agreement that says one parent or the other has custody, then that is the parent that they use for financial info. Unless it's changed in the last 2 1/2 years. :)

As for private schools, I wouldn't know as my daughter went to Temple U.

if there is an agreement that says one parent or the other has custody, then that is the parent that they use for financial info.

While this would certainly seem appropriate, it is not correct. If you read the instructions or look into the FAQ, it is the parent with whom you spent the most time in the 12 months prior to filing out your FAFSA (not calendar or tax year), regardless of who has legal or court ordered custody. The wording in the instructions is actually, "If your parents are divorced or separated, answer the questions about
the parent you lived with more during the past 12 months."

There is no parental agreements with the FAFSA, custody percentage doesn't matter, neither does who claims the child on their taxes. FAFSA parental income is based on who the child lives with most of the time solely. As stated above, the CSS profile is a whole different story.