I was recently interviewed by Holly Hooper for a Redfin article on selling a home during a divorce. It covered the major options: sell and split the proceeds, one party buys the other out, continue co-ownership temporarily, or trade the home for other assets.
Those are all valid frameworks. But in practice, the real issue is not understanding the options. The real issue tends to be getting two people, who might be unable to agree on the color of the sky, to make joint decisions about one of the most valuable and emotional assets they own. Selling a home during a divorce is rarely simply a financial decision. It is often where emotion, control, parenting concerns, and financial reality all collide.
Below are some of the most common problems that come up in Massachusetts divorce cases involving the sale of a home, along with practical ways to solve them.
1. “I Don’t Want to Sell the House”
This is usually where things begin. One spouse wants to sell. The other does not. The most common reason is the children. One parent wants to keep the home to preserve stability. Same school, same neighborhood, same routine. The children have so much that changes during a divorce that maintaining their surroundings becomes quite appealing. That instinct is understandable. But it is important to separate the emotional concern from the legal and financial reality.
The house is a property issue, separate and apart from custody.
Wanting to remain in the home with the children does not, by itself, entitle one party to delay or avoid a sale indefinitely. Courts in Massachusetts will consider the children, but they will also weigh the financial rights of both parties. And that usually means that if the home represents a large portion of the marital estate, it needs to be addressed in a way that is fair to both sides. There is also a practical point that is worth saying out loud. Kids are more resilient than you might think. A move is disruptive, but it is not determinative. Stability comes from parenting, not just a physical address.
What about keeping the house jointly after the divorce?
It sounds like a compromise, but it can create long-term problems that the judge will want to avoid. Keeping the house together, or even with both of you on the mortgage, keeps you more financially entangled than necessary. If something goes wrong, like missed mortgage payments, both parties are exposed. Or what if the roof is leaking or the furnace goes? Courts are often hesitant to approve joint ownership or even both parties remaining on the mortgage unless there is structure to preemptively solve potential problems down the road. One way to make it workable is to include a clear “exit mechanism.” For example, either party can force the sale at any time, or upon certain triggers like missed payments or failure to maintain the property. This doesn’t completely avoid problems, but it can make the agreement palatable enough for the judge to sign off.
Without that kind of provision, pursuing co-ownership tends to delay resolution rather than create it.
2. “I Can’t Afford to Leave”
Another very common issue arises when the home is the largest asset in the marriage. One party is living there. They want to stay but financially, they cannot qualify to buy out the other spouse or maintain the home on their own. This is the moment in which the party who want to stay struggles with how to resolve things, while the lawyers all see the reality. If the equity in the home is marital, it belongs to both parties. That means one spouse cannot retain the benefit of that equity simply because they would prefer to stay in the home if they can’t afford to get the other off the mortgage. This is often where expectations need to be adjusted. The obvious answer is to sell the home.
As far as quality of life, in many cases, it means one or both parties will need to downsize. It may mean renting for a period of time. It may mean a temporary step backward financially. That is not a failure. It is a reflection of dividing one household into two. Trying to avoid that reality usually leads to delay, increased legal fees, and ultimately the same result. Downgrading one’s standard of living, even temporarily, can be a difficult concept to accept, but I recommend viewing it as a temporary disruption. We all know divorce is a difficult time, but it’s also a time to reset and replot one’s course for the future.
3. “Let’s Just Wait a Little Longer”
Even when both parties agree the house should be sold, timing becomes a major point of conflict. One person wants to list now. The other wants to wait. Sometimes it is for legitimate reasons. Market conditions, school timing, or logistics. Sometimes it is simply resistance. If the delay is reasonable, it can often be negotiated. But the key is specificity. A vague agreement to “sell later” is not enough. You need a clear plan. That includes when the house will be listed, what steps need to be taken before listing, and what happens if those steps are not followed. Without that structure, delay becomes indefinite.
In other situations, delay is intentional. One party may stall. They do not respond. They avoid decisions. They create friction at every step. At that point, negotiation is no longer effective. The solution becomes legal. A motion to sell the home can be filed, asking the court to order the listing and sale of the property under defined terms. One important point here: do not wait too long to take that step. It can take months just to get a hearing. Waiting often means extending the entire case unnecessarily.
4. “I Don’t Like Your Realtor”
It sounds minor, but disagreement over the realtor can stall the entire process. Each party may have their own preference. Sometimes those preferences are reasonable. Sometimes they are not. The solution is not to argue over individuals. The solution is to agree on a process. One effective approach is for each party to propose three realtors. If there is overlap, the decision is easy. If not, each party can eliminate one of the other’s options. The remaining candidates can then be selected randomly or by a neutral third party.
There are many ways to structure it. The important point is this: agree on a fair method in advance and keep it professional. This is not the time to select a friend or someone with a personal connection. The realtor needs to be neutral and experienced. Once selected, the parties should generally agree to follow that realtor’s recommendations.
5. “The House Is Worth More Than That”
Pricing is another area where conflict shows up quickly. Each party may have a different view of the home’s value. One wants to push the price higher. The other wants to ensure a faster sale. Realtors will often provide different numbers as well. The instinct is to choose the highest number. That is not always the best strategy. Overpricing can lead to longer time on the market, repeated price reductions, and ultimately a lower sale price. A better approach is to understand the reasoning behind the pricing. Why did the realtor arrive at that number? What comparables are they using? What assumptions are they making about the market?
That is the discussion that should be happening. This is also where having counsel involved can help keep the focus on strategy rather than emotion.
6. “If I Make This Difficult, Maybe It Won’t Happen”
This is one of the more challenging scenarios. One party is living in the home and does not want to sell. Instead of saying that directly, they obstruct the process. They do not maintain the property. They make it difficult to schedule showings. They refuse open houses. They delay communication. I handled a case years ago where this happened in a very clear way. The spouse living in the home would not mow the lawn or maintain the yard. She would allow the other spouse to come by and do it occasionally, but not often enough to keep the property presentable.
She refused open houses. Realtors had difficulty scheduling showings. Calls went unanswered. When asked why, the answer was simple: she did not want to sell. The problem was that the house needed to be sold. At a certain point, you have to shift from negotiation to consequences. In that case, we filed a motion to sell along with a motion to vacate. That is a higher threshold, but the facts supported it. There was also hostility when the other spouse attempted to maintain the property, behavior that supported the latter motion.
The result was immediate. Faced with the possibility of being ordered out of the home before the sale, cooperation improved quickly. That is not always the path, but it illustrates an important principle.
When cooperation fails, structure and consequences often succeed.
7. “We’ll Figure Out the Money Later”
Even after a home is sold, disputes can continue. The question becomes how to divide the proceeds. Sometimes this is straightforward. Other times, it is not. There may be disputes over credits, reimbursements, or how certain expenses should be handled. When that happens, the best solution is often to remove the pressure. That is done by placing the proceeds in escrow. One of the two divorce attorneys will likely need to hold the escrow account as the real estate attorney will not want to play that role.
The funds are held by an escrow agent, typically one of the attorneys, and are not distributed until there is a further written agreement or a court order. This allows the sale to move forward without being delayed by unresolved disputes. It also creates a built-in incentive for both parties to resolve the remaining issues in good faith.
FAQ: Selling the Marital Home in a Massachusetts Divorce
Do we have to sell the house?
Not always, but if it is a major marital asset, the court will usually require a plan to equitably divide its value. Selling is almost always the cleanest (and often the only) way to do that.
Can one spouse force the sale?
Yes. If there is no agreement, a motion can be filed asking the court to order the home to be sold.
What if I want to stay in the home for the kids?
That is understandable, but it is not a complete answer. The court will consider the children, but it will also consider the financial rights of both parties. Custody and property division are separate issues. The court won’t find it equitable to make one spouse wait years for his or her equity in the home.
Can we co-own the home after divorce?
It is possible but not usually recommended. Some people want to do so to keep growing equity while others want it to nest their parenting time. It is possible to do this effectively, but the problem is that it can also become a complete nightmare. If you want to take a shot at keeping it, you’ll want to craft your agreement with a clear exit plan so the judge see’s neither party will be stuck indefinitely and that any issues have a self-correcting provision.
What if my spouse refuses to cooperate with selling?
The court can step in. Orders can be issued regarding listing, pricing, showings, and even occupancy if necessary.
How do we choose a realtor?
Ideally through agreement. If not, use a structured selection process or ask the court to decide.
What happens to the money after the sale?
Most commonly, it’s split between the parties, but if there is no agreement, the proceeds can be held in escrow until the court determines how they should be divided.
Final Thoughts
Selling a home during a divorce is rarely simple. It requires decision-making at a time when agreement is difficult. It requires cooperation when cooperation is limited. But it is also one of the most important financial steps in the process. Handled correctly, it allows both parties to move forward with clarity and independence. Handled poorly, it can delay the entire case.
The key is to approach it with structure, realism, and a willingness to use the tools available, whether that is negotiation or court intervention. Because at the end of the day, the goal is not just to sell the house. It is to resolve one of the most significant pieces of the case so that both parties can move on.