What is the value of H's retirement funds and the equity in the house? Remember, this is all about math and business.
Talk with your attorney, but also crunch the numbers yourself.
For instance - if H had $10,000 in an iRA but the house had $200,000 in equity (say, value of $300,000 with a $100,000 mortgage) then the proposed deal would be a good one.
If, on the other hand, H has retirement funds worth $300,000, and the house has only $10,000 equity - well, obviously that's a crummy deal.
Bear in mind, too - if that deal with the house has YOU making all the payments, it may not be such a great deal to give him 20% of the equity YOU have paid for over 15 years or so. That could end up being a lot more than you think.
So - crunch the numbers. For some reason, WAHs seem fond of that option of trading the house equity for their pensions (worked for my brother in 2 out of his 3 divorces; his third wife got smart and insisted on her fair share of the pension).
Also - house prices are falling in many places throughout the country, so be careful about trading things for house equity that may evaporate over the next year. And try to get into the calculations the cost of selling the house. For instance: - you have a house worth $200,000 with a $100,000 mortgage debt. At first, you might think that's a $100,000 asset. So, you agree to keep the house equity and give H $100,000 in savings. BUT - if you were to get into financial trouble a year later and have to sell the house, you wouldn't get $100,000 out of it. There would be realtor fees, and costs involved in fixing it up to sell, etc. - so maybe you would only get $90,000 out of it. H ended up with $10,000 more than you - see?
Also - about "fairness" - I'm all for fairness, but don't believe that in a sitch like this, 50:50 is fair. After all, you will likely continue to be the primary caretaker for your small children (an H like yours, in his occupation, is unlikely to be able to provide 50% custodial care). You will need to provide them with a stable home, and your work opportunities will be limited by single-mom childcare concerns etc. Your career opportunities may already have been reduced by time you took off to raise your kids.
So what's "fair" in that situation? I haven't been through it, and others here can probably give you more input. But it seems to me, what is "fair" is that he give you half of all assets ( house equity and pensions) earned during the marriage. On top of that, child support (usually by a formula and seldom equal to half the cost of providing a home and raising a child). On top of that, alimony adequate to compensate you for getting back to where you might have been career-wise if you hadn't taken the primary caretaker role (say, support for four years of college if you need a degree, or support relative to your lost earning potential on the job). This may be harder to fight for, so you may need to argue for more than 50% of the assets to compensate. He should also be responsible for his share of kids' college costs - don;t forget that one.
If your H had been the stay-at-home parent or primary caretaker, freeing you to pursue a career as unfettered as mot married men, where would you be now in a career? If you made choices that limited that based on the agreement between you and your H that you would raise the kids, you need to be compensated for the difference, especially since HE'S the one breaking that agreement.
Also - some women fall into the trap of feeling sorry for the WAS and not anting to take too much money from them. Just remember this - the typical WAS blows through their money. Think of any money you can win in this deal as money you can protect him from spending - money that you might be able to use to bail him out in the future.
