This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Not married but joint house and mortgage - should I get half?(37 Posts)
Me and my stbxp are splitting up which is a massive blessing in disguise. We have 1 child and he's already agreed that she will live with me (and he would have contact EO weekend when he has his son from his last relationship), I've always been her main carer and he often works away.
He put the initial deposit down to buy our house and has paid most of the mortgage. I earn considerably less so I have contributed towards other bills, food, childcare etc. We own the house 50:50 however he believes he should get his initial deposit back in full when sold. If I got my full 50% equity it would enable me to buy a small house in the area where we currently live, close to our daughter's school and friends. He is already in a fortunate position to buy something much easier than me due to savings and higher income. However when I've explained this he's calling me a 'gold digging b*tch' etc. Oh yes he's been emotionally abusive and controlling throughout our relationship. He's also telling me he's going to be as awkward as possible in order to drive up my legal bill. I'm not sure whether I should just give in and agree for him to have his deposit back to make this break up smoother, or to fight for a better life for myself and my DD. We are still living in our house for the time being, however we can move to my parents if things get unbearable, although that would be a massive pain due to distance from school and work.
Whose name is the house in? Are you joint tenants, tenants in common or is it all in his name?
If it's all in his name you have a problem.
If you own the house 50:50 then he will have to take you to court to get a higher share.
Courts will put the housing needs of the child above anything else. you could go for a Mesher order allowing you to stay till the child was 18.
Or he could just accept what's in the deeds.
We're tenants in common with equal shares. My solicitor has advised if it went to court I would be awarded 50%. It's the morality of taking half of his initial deposit which I'm questioning, although all of my friends and family are like 'screw him'. He's self employed with a Ltd company so I know getting him to pay a decent amount of cm will prove difficult.
...even though he earns 3x what I do.
Did you sacrifice a career to look after your daughter?
He could have ring fenced his deposit - did he do this?
It doesn't sound like he's worried about you losing out. Just take the 50% you are entitled to. If he had wanted you to have less it should have been set up differently.
If you had no children then I would say he should get his deposit back.
However, given that he only intends to see his child every other weekend, then that child is going to need a home for the other 26 days of the month.
You know he'll hide money from you in respect of child maintenance so it is absolutely right that you should use this money in the child's best interests. You would be compromising your child's future otherwise. Listen to your solicitor.
He didn't protect his deposit legally. He just assumed if we split he'd just get it back automatically. I'd love to stay in our house but I just couldn't afford to. My gut feeling is to go for the full 50%, if I gave in he would just try to screw me further down the line, probably with reducing cm or something.
I'm putting aside the legals here but how much did he stump up for deposit? If it's 100k I can see why he would want that back and fight for. If it's more like 10k that's different. How long have you lived together?
If he's self employed he could easily screw you for child maintenance anyway...don't reply on him being reasonable
Go for your full 50%. He will likely try to screw you over child support so get what you can up front. He has no moral right to the deposit anyway - you will be housing his child full time. Women are at a disadvantage in career terms as soon as they become the main carer for a child - it will be you taking the financial hit of missing work when your dd is off school ill or not being as free to devote time to your career because of child care responsibilities. He will essesntially be a free agent. Imo he owes you the whole house until your child is 18.
If he gets arsey you could always go for the court order which allows you to stay there until dd is 28. He would sill have to pay the mortgage. If he thinks you are going for that he might stfu and just accept his 50%.
Take your solicitor's advice - they are the experts.
As they are not married there is no legal obligation on him to provide housing and mesher orders don't apply. He would not have to pay the mortgage. No one knows that he will try to screw op over 're child maintenance either - has he indicated he will op or are you just concerned due to self employed status? I know plenty of self employed fathers who pay well over any csa deemed guidelines.
ultimately you're entitled to the 50%, only you can judge whether that is fair 're deposit based on its value, length of relationship, any change to your working life /job etc which has been sacrificed .
Mesher orders do apply Milly as they're about the child.
Just take the 50%. Think of the thousands in childcare you'll be saving him over the forthcoming years. Or offer him his deposit back if he has his DD 50% of the time
Morally you should let him have the deposit back. His money.
Legally, you don't have to.
Personally, I would do what's morally right.
How would you feel if the situation was reversed?
But morally should the Dad not provide a home for his child that minimises the disruption/upset on her from the split Zippey?
He would sill have to pay the mortgage
No he wouldn't.
I think that if it's his name on the mortgage as well as the OP's then he is liable for the repayments. As is the OP but the mortgage co will go after whoever they think has the means to pay. They don't care about relationship break ups, only about getting paid. I think the court can insist he pays the mortgage (his share anyway) if there is an order which allows the OP to remain in the house until the child is 18. Not saying that is the ideal situation for her but it certainly wouldn't suit him. A clean break would be better, but the OP still has to house the child so she should get the full 50%. I can't see why anyone would think it is morally okay for him to leave woth the deposit and no child care responsibilities. The OP is financially disadvantahed by parenthood in a way that he is not, so of course she should be financially compensated so she can meet tne needs of her child.
If he had taken 50:50 responsibility for his child both before you split up and for your future plans, which would have allowed you to pursue a more lucrative career and earn more and pay in more, then it would be reasonable for him to get the deposit back. As it is, your earning power has been sacrificed for his convenience therefore a 50:50 share of the house is morally right to be yours. You have contributed massively.
Take the money woman, you are not taking advantage of a man when you are the one who needs to house the child, pay for the vast majority of DD's expenses including child care, and do so with a much smaller salary than his.
He will be legally entitle to swan off into the sunset paying you about 10-12% of his net salary as child maintenance (if you are lucky, most NRP do not even pay)
It is early days but if he is already oblivious to the fact that by giving you less money he is screwing things up for his DD, it is likely that that 50% deposit may be the only extra money you could get to provide for her.
I think that if it's his name on the mortgage as well as the OP's then he is liable for the repayments.
There can be indemnities put in place to safeguard him. A
I think the court can insist he pays the mortgage (his share anyway) if there is an order which allows the OP to remain in the house until the child is 18
Not very common to make him continue to pay. Especially as they aren't married.
He could I believe technically charge her rent as she would have exclusive use of an asset that he has no access to.
Please login first.