Selling the family home- who gets what. Please help !

[Pinksparke]

Bob was with Sarah for 15 years . They have two children . They lived together in a big family home . Bob left when they split . The mortgage is in Bob’s name . Bob pays the mortgage .

Bob lives with his wife in their house with their son . Bob and wife pay the mortgage here . It is a financial struggle .

Sarah lives in the family home with Sarah and Bob’s children . Sarah is getting married and her new partner is moving in. Sarah’s partner is mortgage free ( he has a bungalow ) he will rent this to his son now that he is living in Bob and Sarah’s home .

Sarah wants half of the house when Bob sells it. Bob is happy to do this however Bob paid the deposit for the house from inheritance and is paying off £25k credit cards that Sarah and Bob racked up.

Should Bob still pay the mortgage when Sarah’s partner moves in?
Legally, does Bob have to wait until their youngest child is 18 before he can sell the family home ? Should Bob take off the deposit and half of credit card debit before he splits the profit from the house sale with Sarah ?
Legally does Bob have to give Sarah half ?

Bob pays the legal amount of child support and uniforms , shoes and extras . Kids stay with Bob 2 nights a week.

For clarification they were never married and house is solely in Bob’s name .

I'd say Sarah moves into the bungalow and Bob moves back into the house.

If they were not married and Sarah was not an owner on the deeds (which is what determines ownership rather than the mortgage) then legally speaking she is SOL and is entitled to nothing.

It was generous of Bob to pay the mortgage this long, but the house should probably have been sold long ago. Bob is unlikely to owe anything to Sarah legally speaking - she hasn't been paying him rent all these years, after all - so if he felt like giving her half minus any remaining debts that would still be a pretty sweet deal.

If Sarah is on the deeds, though, I believe the default position would be that she'd own half of any equity. However, in the absence of a marriage or a court order stating differently, Bob can force a sale of the property any time.

Bob and Sarah should each consult a solicitor. Bob and Sarah should also both check the deeds to understand if Sarah is named on them or if Bob simply owns the house.

If Sarah has paid towards the mortgage or for improvements to the house, she may legally have a claim on it.

If she hasn't, she probably has no legal claim to the house and is only entitled to child maintenance.

However, morally given the length of the relationship (15 years), it would arguably be unfair of Bob to chuck her out with nothing. He presumably also wants his children to have a home and for Sarah to remain primary carer for them (as opposed to having them full-time), which is going to be difficult if Sarah can't afford anywhere to live.

Best thing would be to sell the house now and decide a fair division of assets. If Sarah is going to be the main carer for the children going forward, that's probably 50/50 despite Bob putting down the deposit (15 years with kids is a committed longstanding relationship). Deduct Sarah's share of the credit card debt... that should be split. But Bob shouldn't have to pay for 2 homes, especially if it's a financial struggle. They both need to move on.

I do think Bob has been very generous here by continuing to pay the mortgage, presumably for some years after the split if he's married and has another child/children (although it can obviously happen very quickly it's likely greater than 2 years). Others have pointed out the legal responsibilities of being unmarried with children which he has more than met and continues to meet.

I doubt there'd be the same response from some posters regarding keeping it in his trousers/legs crossed if it was Sarah having another child with her new partner. People are entitled to have children, he can provide for the children however he shouldn't be paying the entire mortgage on a house he isn't living in but his ex and new partner are.

I think 50/50 is much more than fair however I would be inclined to suggest it excludes the deposit and anything contributed post break up. Definitely get legal advice on both parts so everyone knows exactly who's entitled to what and reach a compromise that way.

If they weren't married then sarah is Bob's tenant however if she has been contributing towards the mortgage for years then she will be entitled legally to some equity.

Apparently she hasn't and Bob has paid the whole mortgage, but in any case, no she won't, or everyone who paid rent would be entitled to a share of their landlord's equity. Paying towards the house that you live in which is wholly owned by someone who doesn't live there is rent.

Bob should chuck out the pair of leeches and sell the house. And stop paying off their debts. What a sucker.

Why didn't Bob sort this out when he and Sarah split? Was he feeling guilty because he was already procreating away with OP his new wife?

He has fucked this up big time. If I were Sarah I would just sit tight. Bob can't stop paying the mortgage without messing up his credit rating.
If I were Bob's new wife I would think I had married an idiot.

If Sarah has contributed to the mortgage/paid bills/ stayed home as per Bobs request to look after the kids instead over the course of relationship then it seems fair for her to get some of the equity but she shouldn't be benefiting from a fully paid for mortgage after the split, especially with her nee partner moving in- it's obviously been going on a while.

Joint debt and inheritance deposit should 100% be taking in to account in my opinion but I would say legal advice is definitely needed.

Bob can do what he wants with his house, his only obligation is to pay maintenance for his DC.
As a courtesy he could offer Sarah first refusal to buy the house. Sarah could end up living up Shit Street.

YABU to ask Mumsnet for an answer - this is a question for a solicitor.

Bob’s main concern is his children . There is no way that Sarah could have afforded more than a 2 bed flat for the children if she rented privately - hence Bob continuing to pay the mortgage so that his children could remain in their home .

Bob respects that Sarah is the primary caregiver and has always looked after the children whilst he went to work to earn the money to pay the mortgage - so he believes she is entitled to half of the house .

Now Sarah is getting married Bob no longer feels he needs to pay the mortgage and child maintenance as Sarah is no longer a single mum in need of help to pay the rent . It is ridiculous that Bob would essentially be paying for Sarah’s new partner and his son to live rent free.

Bob is a decent bloke and his main concern has always been his children . Bob will not fuck anyone over he is just confused so will seek legal advice .

It is hard as Bob’s children are in vital school years and Bob worries about the effect selling the house on them will have however currently Bob is living in a tiny house with his wife and baby and needs to think what effect this will have .

A huge thanks to all replies !

Surely the house was discussed when they divorced?

Now Sarah is getting married Bob no longer feels he needs to pay the mortgage and child maintenance as Sarah is no longer a single mum

Whilst I agree the mortgage arrangement needs to stop, Bob is very unreasonable to think that he should stop paying child maintenance for his own children.

BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz they weren’t married.

Bob will continue to pay child maintenance, school and uniform , pocket money and pay for a holiday for the children at least once a year. Bob also always is the one to pay for laptop , phone contracts and school trips .

They weren't married.

If I were Bob, assuming I am in fact the sole owner of the house, I would probably look to have an amicable discussion with Sarah around selling the house and gifting her a lump sum minus my inheritance and Sarah's share of joint debts. Or one otherwise rationally calculated. And after consulting a lawyer. Sarah and new partner can then hopefully rent or buy another property nearby.

It’s refreshing to hear of a decent guy who is paying/providing more than the minimum for his DC.
It’s time now for Sarah to stand on her own two feet.

You and bob probably should have had a bit more of a discussion on this before you married him.......

Why isn't Sarah moving into new partner's bungalow?

@Pinksparke

Bob will continue to pay child maintenance, school and uniform , pocket money and pay for a holiday for the children at least once a year. Bob also always is the one to pay for laptop , phone contracts and school trips .

Bob sounds liek a decent chap but Sarah sounds like she wants to eat her cake and have it....

so Bob needs a lawyer and a proper order to close this situation as it is not fair to himself his collective children or his new partner.

Sarah sounds like a pi55 taking cf'er!

@FFSFFSFFS

I’d say Sarah is taking the piss

Yep!

Bob, should sell the house, buy a smaller one for his expartner and children to live in, I would put that in the childrens names.

Or bob, could sell the house, keep all the money, and give her maintenance for the children

Bob owes her nothing really, but needs to look after the children in part

yes Bob needs to just arrange to sell the place - Sarah would have to take him to court if she wants to get any equity, but doesn't sound like she would have no claim (would need to be a discussion PRE purchase as to them sharing it together, maybe her paying some of the deposit, and her not being on the deeds for some specific reason (ie she was 16 when they met so too young)

He can give her more maintanence if he wants to ensure kids are okay - rather than pay current CMS and the mortgage