Is ExH entitled to enter property after all this time?

The analogy is wrong. A landlord provides a tenancy agreement, there is a contract. Of course a landlord can't walk in, the tenant pays for use of the property.

If you jointly own a property that is the contract. You own jointly, you are jointly responsible for the mortgage and legally you can't lock a joint owner out of the property as it belongs equally to both of you. It is nothing like a landlord/ tenant relationship.

Yes, he can.

He isn't her landlord. He is her husband still because they haven't yet divorced. He also owns 50% of the house. It remains his house too and he has the right to reside there, whether he exercises that right or not.

With landlords and tenants there is a tenancy agreement in place and this states that except for real emergencies (life and death etc.) the landlord cannot enter the property unannounced. There must be a reasonable length of notice given. In writing. The landlord may be the owner of the property, but once a tenancy agreement is in place and a tenant in situ they have no legal right to live there. The tenant does.

Landlord and tenant agreements are not remotely the same thing as a legal marriage. There is really no comparison.

The landlord analogy about not being able to march in without agreeing a time for it, is information I acquired during my divorce 6 years ago. It could be seen as harassment to foist himself upon the family home, regardless of ownership.

For those saying the OP should not be paying him half the equity from the past 9 years as shes been paying the mortgage, surely the reasoning behind that she couldn't afford to buy him out 8 years ago. If she could, presumably he'd have had enough for a deposit for his own property, so would have been gaining equity on that rather than sinking money on rent.

Seems pretty sensible to me!

Anyway OP I think your question has been answered - yes, he's legally entitled to enter the house. Hopefully he won't be so antagonistic particularly as you have kids. Hope your divorce is sorted ASAP 🙂

Oh dear! I didn't mean to suggest that they had a landlord-tenant relationship at all. Only that the distinction between owning a property and it being someone else's home, is similar, and that a non-resident owner cannot just turn up and freely enter the other person's home.

A landlord permits a tenant to have exclusive use of a property in exchange for rent. That is what constitutes a tenancy. It has nothing to do with 2 adult jointly owning a property.

Can you explain how that actually works legally not 'well i have decided' but the actual law around it

There is a clear legal structure available for landlords and tenants. Absolutely none of that applies here because there is no landlord-tenant relationship, or agreement. They're joint owners of a house.

He's not a landlord.

They are married although living separately and he and she both jointly legally own the house.

The marriage creates an association between them that does not exist between landlord and tenant.

Is he charging the Op rent?

He may be a joint owner, but as he does not live there, and it is your home, I am surprised that so many on here say he has a right of entry. Surely he is in the same situation as a landlord whon owns a property that is rented to someone as their home? There is a distinction between being an owner or joint owner, and living in one's home, A landlord cannot just turn up and go in whenever they want - they must make an appointment. Not sure if the other party has a legal obligation to let them in, though. Can you get a solicitor's advice OP?

I think if you've remained married then your finances remain legally shared. The combined couple has needed the house and the rented place for the last 8 years. The combined couple has also been paying for the mortgage and the rent for the last 8 years. So when they finally get divorced the pot will be split at that point, effectively taking into account both mortgage and rent because both have been taken out of the finances each month for those 8 years.

If you want to break apart the finances and earn / save your own money separately from your partner, you need to divorce.

And yeah, he has a right to enter. He'd be a bit of a dick to use it. Get that divorce sorted.

If he’s the type to do things just to show you that he can, then I’d try and be very blasé about it; ‘oh yes, sorry, I’ve been rushing about, I must get you one cut’. Don’t let him think that you don’t want to give him a key. If he thinks you have no objection to him having one, he’ll probably be far less likely to want to prove to you that it’s not your decision.

Softly softly catchee monkey. The second the ink is dry on the very last bit of paperwork, you can tell him to sod right off. But until then, it’s definitely better to take a low key approach than charge in, all guns blazing.

She says equity will be 50/50 and he has the legal right to enter, even if it means breaking in. Can't be done for criminal damage/illegal entry if he's on the mortgage.

Surely he still gets half other wise she should be paying half market rent to him for his half the property.

This!

He can't just walk in unannounced if he is no longer habitually resident there. Imagine if a landlord did that, just because they owned the place. He has to arrange a mutually convenient time to visit the property.

Do you think he wants a key to get a valuation? I think that is quite likely myself. I would get records together of your sole mortgage payments and all other contributions you can, improvement s etc. You need to establish how much of the house he owns.

Quite right, I'm an electrician, I recently did a kitchen re-wire, never asked who owned it, assumed the customer did, turned out to be a council property - do I care, no, I got paid

Same with a locksmith unless it has patented locks fitted (Brahma, Chubb etc) in which case the keys have to be ordered from the manufacturers given a PIN number. of course you can still drill out and replace the lock.

As joint owner he has the right to move in if he wants, or apply to the court to force a sale, at any time.

In that case OP should have paid half of his rent.

The regular outgoings of paying of the mortgage vs the exH paying rent isn't the real issue, it's the increase in value of the house. Though an argument could be made that it's just the interest on the mortgage that's equivalent to the rent, we can probably ignore that in this case.

On average, house prices have increased around 50% in the time since they split. So if the house value had been £200k split at the time they separated, they would have got £100k each. If the house is now worth £300k, they get £150k each, which is a considerable difference. But also in that time, the house will only be worth the higher amount because the OP has been maintaining the property which is a cost her exH won't have had with rentals.

So very complex trying to work out what is morally fair, even if everything stays amicable.

what I’m asking is if a locksmith is likely to agree to change a lock if he doesn’t live here? I assume he would need a land registry to prove he’s on deeds as he won’t have any paperwork and isn’t on electoral role

I imagine locksmiths change locks all the time for people without paperwork. If I was locked out of my house, I wouldn't have proof to hand that I lived there. I'd maybe be able to pull up something on my phone but I imagine it would be easy to fake.

Yes, he can move back in too. Mine threatened, other woman in tow. He used it as leverage to sell.