Who is BU? I'm not sure. Sorry it's long.

[acomingin]

A couple of recent threads have reminded me of a situation that has been rumbling in our extended family for some time and looks likely to blow up again.
#Names changed

Mike and Jane were in a relationship. Bought a house together had a DD. Sadly broke up after a few years. Mike paid towards the mortgage and CM well over the required level. He rented a flat and had DD to stay as often as possible. Jane remained a SAHM for several years.

Mike was in a dreadful car accident 10 years ago and was very badly injured. He has been unable to work since and is still having corrective operations, although day to day he manages quite well but is in pain a lot. Eventually he was awarded considerable compensation and he paid off the mortgage and gave the house to Jane. He bought himself a house and he shared custody of DD, while also contributing CM from the remaining compensation.

Five years ago he met and married Tina. Tina also had one DC from her previous marriage. She and her ex shared custody, no money paid by either as both earn substantial salaries. All expenses for school etc shared. Tina and Mike now have a 1 year old.

While Tina was pregnant they sold Mike's house and bought a new, bigger one with room for everyone. Tina is back at work now and the baby is in nursery half time as Mike's injuries mean he struggles to care for her full time. His savings from the compensation are almost gone, apart from a pension fund, which was part of the settlement as it was conceded he'd be unlikely to be able to work full time again. He warned Jane that the money was nearly gone and he wouldn't be paying CM any more, especially as DD is at his house more than her mother's. His DD is nearly 16 and he wants to save what's left to help her through university, paid directly to her.

Jane hates her job and wants to give it up but will have nothing to live on because she hasn't saved any money from the maintenance paid over the years or from her wages. She wants Mike to pay her more not less because Tina is "loaded".

Tina says she is not getting one penny of her money, although she doesn't begrudge a single penny spent on SDD who she loves.

Mike is feeling a bit guilty but there is no money and he bought her a house. That's enough, surely?

Can you answer the questions OP? You’ve slanted your story in a certain way

And Mike and Jane were never married?!?!

floraljane has eaten aaaaalllllllllll the cake!!!

And I’m sure Mikes sweet, but he does sound a bit of a doormat.

Xpost !!

Mike needs to pay maintenance according to the formula for number of nights based on his benefits . Which may end up being nothing

If he is in receipt of his pension this would count as income for cms purposes but sounds like this is in the future

Sounds like Mike has gone well above and beyond for many years, and Jane is a grabby cow who now needs to be an adult.

Agreed. This very much reminds me of a situation in my own extended family. What gives these women this entitled mentality?

Legally Mike has to pay CM until his DD leaves full time education be that at 18 or 21.

I understand Mike’s position but unless his DD moves in with him FT, he still needs to pay some CM. It won’t be as much though, it will be however much he can currently afford.

Jane needs to get a new job if she hates the one she has, this is not Mike’s responsibility. Tina definitely doesn’t need to pay towards the CM, I agree with her whole heartedly.

Sounds like Jane needs to get off her arse and get a job. She's lived off Mike, a man she was never married to, for a long time and he's done his duty as a parent to his DD, including having her live with him now. Jane's nonexistent financial planning should not be a problem that she parks at his door now after all these years. If she's that hard up she should sell the house he bought and downsize.

Jane needs to sell the house and sort herself out by downsizing.

I don’t know how Jane even thinks her requests are reasonable. She’s kidding herself!!
Floral- you’re kidding yourself 😂

I'd be interested to hear Jane's side.
You say Mike paid off the mortgage, but details like how much was left to pay are relevant, also was it in both their names and did he sign it over to her, had she been paying it on her own til then or when they lived together.
Also who pays for DD in terms of everything is relevant. If Mike is paying minimum child support and Jane is forking out for school fees, uniforms, trips, holidays, hobbies then that slants it somewhat too.
Also, you say daughter spends time at dads, are we talking overnight? Regular meals? Or just dropping in after school or evenings?

Unfortunately none of those extra details really matter other than making the OP more identifiable .... as they weren’t married and he’s paid more than he legally is obliged to. The morally right or wrong of counting all the pennies is neither here nor there as Jane could be claiming every extra benefit she’s entitled to also.

He warned Jane that the money was nearly gone and he wouldn't be paying CM any more, especially as DD is at his house more than her mother's

This is really the only relevant point. If the DD is genuinely spending more time at her father’s then no, he doesn’t pay maintenance.

Surely the most relevant point is that Mike doesn't have any real income of his own and thus has already been incredibly generous in spending a huge amount of his compensation money - potentially the only major income he was ever going to have again - in buying Jane a house?

He didn't have to do that and he has no obligation to pay anything further when he has no means of earning anything to support himself! Regardless of where SD spends most time.

You say Mike paid off the mortgage, but details like how much was left to pay are relevant, also was it in both their names and did he sign it over to her, had she been paying it on her own til then or when they lived together.

The house and mortgage were in both their names but paid by Mike as Jane was a SAHM. He paid off the entire mortgage (in excess of £150,000).

School trips were jointly funded but Mike was paying way in excess of the standard CMS and expected that uniform should come out of that. Extras and hobbies Mike and Tina pay for.

SDD sleeps at her Dad's 4 or 5 nights a week. Sometimes more.

really all that's relevant (legally) is what the CMS say. Which will probably be jane getting a tiny tiny tiny amount a week, or nothing. Especially if the DD stays with him 4-5 nights a week, Jane might actually end up paying Mike so speaking to the CMS might actually not be the best option for Jane.

Jane can get a different job. She's mortgage free!!

What would Jane have done if Mike had been killed in the car crash? No doubt, the compensation would have been paid (and probably an even greater amount), but surely it would all have gone to the DD, with some paid on her behalf to Jane in lieu of maintenance and housing until DD is an adult.

I may be wrong here, but I'm assuming the house would also belong to the DD, so Jane would either have to find her own housing or otherwise rely on the continued goodwill of her teenage DD - assuming that DD wouldn't, in due course, want to live in her own house with her own family. Needless to say, if Mike had been killed, then Tina (and her high earnings) would never have been on the scene.

After that, though, as an ex with no link to Mike other than sharing an adult DD, she would be due nothing.

Back to the actual situation, where Mike thankfully did survive, if she was earning her own wages, getting generous CM and having no rent/mortgage to pay from it (as well has not having DD-related costs when she's at her DF's), whatever was she planning to do to support herself once the DD is grown up?

What Tina earns is irrelevant here. She is kind and supportive to her DSD, but has no moral or legal obligation to Jane at all.

PPs are right that, if anything, as DD is living with him the majority of the time, Jane should be paying Mike CM. If she pursues him legally - a parent who houses and pays for a not-far-off adult DC for more than 50% of the time and is unable to earn more than incapacity benefit (which is surely set at a level of determined need, as opposed to a salary, which could reasonably be hoped and expected to bring in extra disposable money once all essentials have been covered), exactly what does she think is going to happen? Does she really think that the court will force some unrelated woman who happens to be her DD's DF's DP to pay her?!

In her position, I think she'd be wise to keep very quiet in case Mike/the court cite the fully-paid-for house as a major asset that, whilst clearly given to her only in her capacity as Mike's DD's DM, she is obviously expecting to keep for life. They could quite legitimately claim that, once the DD is an adult and she no longer has any financial link with Mike, the house ownership should revert to Mike or their DD.

In hindsight, it would have been much better if Mike had paid the mortgage off and drawn up a fair agreement as to how much each owns (based on who put up the original deposit, him making the mortgage payments and her contribution to the household as a SAHM). If they'd done this, Jane would still be looking at downsizing once the DD is an adult, but likely without any extra remaining equity to live off. Having had a child does not automatically entitle you yourself to be looked after for life.

Jane sounds like a complete sponger to be honest.

Mike is already doing more than enough to support his daughter, she lives with him almost full time...Jane should be paying him maintenance, not the other way around! There's no way she would get anything legally.

Well hasn’t Jane had it easy all this time.She hit the jackpot.House paid for her never worked and lived off her kid.
She best be bucking her ideas up,what is she going to do when the child leaves school,does she think her child’s step mother should fund her to sit on her arse for all time.
Tina should tell her in no uncertain terms to fuck the fuck off

In this situation the CMS route will take all the heat out of it, so that’s what they should do. They’ll never agree and all the he said/she said/he did etc is just unnecessary baggage. The CM will be what is legally due. Mike pays that, secure in the knowledge he’s been generous in the past.

if you do the CMA calculator, select incapacity benefit and more than 3 nights a week, it says no child maintenance is payable.

If you do it as the receiving parent and put in £87.65pw income (which is what google tells me that higher rate incapacity benefit is this year) it says £7 a week maintenance, though it does not ask how many nights a week the other parent has the child.

However, it doesn't cross check so it wont flag up and say "hang on a minute you should be paying your ex not the other way around" but mike would be entitled to a bit of maintenance from jane and he could pursue it if he wanted to IME.

Jane sounds useless

I understand Mike’s position but unless his DD moves in with him FT, he still needs to pay some CM. It won’t be as much though, it will be however much he can currently afford.

What would he be paying CM for, if he already houses and provides for his DD the majority of the time. You can't even argue that her DM still has to provide housing as the DD's nominated main residence, as he paid for that outright too.

CM is meant to pay for half the costs of a dependent child but the other parent is still expected to pay their share as well (and certainly not expect maintenance for themselves too). Things might be fairly adjusted if the child is young and/or has SEN or disabilities which mean that the RP has very limited capacity to earn their own half, but a presumably-healthy 16yo?

So many feckless fathers act disgracefully in avoiding supporting their children following a divorce/separation, but that fact doesn't automatically make all dads the bad guys, especially when they very clearly DO care very much for and willingly support their children, as Mike does.

will have nothing to live on because she hasn't saved any money from the maintenance paid over the years or from her wages

I agree with that Jane has no leg to stand on but wanted to pick up on the above. There is no obligation to save maintenance - it is a contribution towards the upbringing of a child/ren.

@acomingin in which case I agree with everyone else that Jane needs to stop taking advantage and based on this I would contact child support as she probably should be paying Mike!
Why is Mike so generous with his ex? I get being generous with DD but the ex?? Is he just a genuinely nice guy, a doormat? Does he feel guilty about the split? It matters little but it's an unusual situation!

Jane needs to realise how lucky she actually is and stop whining. She has had a house bought for her that she owns outright and she is mortgage free, all thanks to Mike.

As far as her job goes, is she looking for something better?

I don't think that she can ask much more of Mike, if we take what you have said at face value.

There is no obligation to save maintenance - it is a contribution towards the upbringing of a child/ren.

of course its not obligatory but anyone with half a brain who wanted to quit their job would have saved some money whether it was her own wages, or maintenance or whatever....