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 .

Well done Bob for going above and beyond, at least at first, but he is being taken for a mug now. Sarah needs to get a job, and Bob needs a backbone and a lawyers appointment. I actually feel very sorry for his wife and other child/children.

I really think Bob needs to see a solicitor.

Reading this I think he's the sole owner of the house that Sarah and kids are in. Kids sound old enough for Sarah to have got some sort of work in the last few years.

Would it be an option for him and wife to move into the house Sarah is in and for Sarah to move into Bill's house ?

Giving the older children the option do they want to stay with Mum elsewhere or stay with Dad in the house.

Other option he sells at market rate to Sarah and Bill.

He definitely shouldn't be subsidising two other adults.

Another question at what point was he planning to stop paying?
What happens if his kids go to uni - who pays?

Also, why is Sarah moving the new man in while her children are in their exam years?

Exactly this also.

The situation with the new partner moving in, and renting out his own house (and keeping the money!) while Bob struggles to pay his mortgage and Sarah doesn't work, exposes the unfairness of the situation. It's the ideal time to have this conversation (that should have been had when Bob and Sarah split or when Bob remarried). Sorry Bob's mum for talking about Bob dying, but if he were to die his wife could end up owning the former house (that Sarah also thinks she owns). He needs to sort out a more definitive arrangement, or he isn't doing Sarah any favours.

@ButtOutBobsMum

Ok so my ex was/is like Bob and really supportive - allowed me to stay in the family home and pays half the mortgage. But … there is a clause in the agreement that forces a sale should I ever remarry or cohabit with someone else and this is very common and even if they had legalised everything he would have been advised to include this. So it should be a trigger to force the sale now in my opinion. And if I did want to move in with someone I would fully expect my ex to stop paying his share of the mortgage and for the house to get sold.

Why did Bob leave the family home especially if it was so big to allow Sarah to live there and then subsidise her for some bills?

Bob should have seen a solicitor from the get go, or sorted something out with a solicitor or married Sarah, because at least then, he would have more leverage.

Yes, he's been nice and fair helping out Sarah and their kids but it is not their fault that Sarah has now moved on, with a partner who is at an advantage and it's also not fair on Sarah and her kids (if they're adults over age of 18, they technically don't have a right to have a home provided for them) that Bob has moved on, remarried and got a young child and a smaller home.

Would be interesting to hear Sarah's side of the story not the biased mum's/Bob's side.

Just seen that Sarah doesn't work. Has she never worked? Was she a SAHM/W for many years when the kids were young so didn't get a chance to go back to work/study/build a career?

So many questions...

Honestly… solicitor is a must. These things are NOT black and white but definitively, the fact that they were not married doesn’t totally exclude Sarah from getting part of the house, especially if she has been paying for repairs or part of the mortgage, but this has to be mandated by court, it is not an automatic right.

A court could have easily mandated for Sarah to stay in the property until the kids were out of mandatory education if she was able to pay the mortgage on her own or with Bob’s help provided that Bob had still enough resources to house himself as well. But again, it is not an automatic right.

One thing that is an automatic right though is for Bob and Sarah to rebuild their lives, re marry if they wish and get a second set of children. The children from the first and second marriage have exactly the same rights irrespective of being born from the first or second marriage. Trying to imply that rebuilding their life after a failed relationship or have more children is something they shouldn’t do it is short sighted, narrow minded and utterly judgemental unless you are advocating for forced celibacy after a split or want to bring back the times when divorcing was forbidden.

Bob’s wife has as much right to have a view on finances as Sarah’s partner. This doesn’t mean they have a right to dictate what happens next, but they definitely have a right to have an opinion.

@Ylfa

Bob should be more careful with his knob.

Why has he made even more children if he is struggling?

Bob should be more careful with his partners and getting involved with non working leeches. Hopefully his new partner isn't of the same Ilk.

Hope bob and his knob are enjoying his new partner. Glad he despite having had the piss taken out of him has moved on!

Bob obviously needs legal advice.

If it were me I'd sell the house and split as the total amount as:

25k deposit back to Bob
X amount to pay off debt
X amount of equity built up from Bob paying off mortgage to go to Bob

Then what's left if basically pure profit which can be split 50/50 if he wants to be generous.

Bob is a good man. He's giving Sarah the rights she would have had if they were technically married. You should be proud you raised someone who knows how to do the right thing.

A plan of action should be set in place, legally to deal with the next few years. And of course, morally, it is not right that two adults will inhabit the house where Bob pays the mortgage. Everyone needs to do the right thing.

@Purplecatshopaholic

Well done Bob for going above and beyond, at least at first, but he is being taken for a mug now. Sarah needs to get a job, and Bob needs a backbone and a lawyers appointment. I actually feel very sorry for his wife and other child/children.

Agree

Sell the house, offering first refusal to Sarah and NewBloke

Repay the mortgage company

Pay off all the remaining joint debts

Bob keeps the next £25k from his inheritance deposit and the total of the joint debts that he has paid off to date.

The remainder should be split by working out how many years they both lived there as a couple (15) and how many years Bob has paid the mortgage since so if Bob left 5 years ago he gets 20 shares of the equity and Sarah gets 15 shares.

Interesting that Bob's kids appear to be of school age re the uniforms, child support and staying with him 2 nights a week so therefore until they start paying jobs (don't think I would count jobs they got whilst they were at college/uni to be paid towards running costs of a house).

Agreed with @MissFranKubelik - at least Bob is doing the right thing financially by his kids but it appears that now he's a bit pissed off or his new wife is, or you are (the mum) by the situation. If it is you (mum) pissed off then butt out.

Sarah can move I nto the new partners house.
Kids move all tge time
There is no inalienable right yo stay in ond house all childhood
hey were never married and house is solely in Bob’s name

Sell the big house
If bob happy to give d half away take it

Bob is getting the piss taken out of him and needs a lawyer.

Why should Sarah get any of the equity out the house?
She's never worked or paid towards in even in the last few years when she could have worked, but didn't and has lived rent free.

He really needs legal advice.

Legally Bob doesn't have to do anything other than pay the child maintenance (unless there is some sort of legal child order in place). Morally it sounds as if he's been a stand up guy who wanted to be sure Sarah and the children had a good roof over their heads. There are threads upon threads where one member of a splitting couple just kicks the other member out with nothing, often with children in tow.

But things are changing now that Sarah will have a new DH to 'provide' for her. If the house, in and of itself, is a good investment for Bob I'd start charging Sarah and her new DH rent. There's absolutely no reason why they should live there rent free. If he wanted to charge a slightly lower rate because he pays a lower amount of maintenance as he's been providing a 'free' home for the children in the past he can do so or he can raise his maintenance payments to cover the cost of 'shelter' for his DC. If Sarah and her new DH feel they can get a 'better deal' renting elsewhere, then they can move.

If the home is not a good investment or if Bob and his wife are seriously 'doing without' to keep a roof over Sarah and the children's heads, then the house should be sold. But I'd think that if Bob charged the new couple market/reasonable rent then his and his wife's own financial situation should improve.

If the house is sold and Bob wanted to give Sarah a share, I'd definitely pay off the CC debt first, assuming of course that the debt was really was accrued by both of them. But if, for example, a car was purchased with it and Bob kept the car I wouldn't consider that 'joint' debt. The inheritance is a greyer issue for me. If they were together at the time of the inheritance and it was used by Bob to purchase a 'family home' then I wouldn't deduct it from the proceeds. By purchasing a family home, he in essence 'gave' the inheritance to the the family. But if he purchased the home before the relationship started, then I'd deduct it.

@RoyKentsChestHair

The only thing I can say for sure is that Bob should not be paying the mortgage on a house that Sarah’s new partner moves into while he rents his house out. Otherwise Bob is essentially subbing his ex’s new partner’s son with free rent!!

Sarah and Bob need to sever their financial ties if they’ve both moved on to new partners. The old arrangement worked when Sarah was a single mum and Bob was keeping a roof over his DCs heads.

I was Sarah. I never moved my DP in so my ex is still on my mortgage (although I pay it, my earnings aren’t high enough to actually get a mortgage, so he’s only on it in name really). Had I ever moved my DP into my home I would not have expected my ex to remain on it, much less pay for it, so that DP’s kids could get a free ride.

This.

In spades!!!

I have gone through this entire thread noting some of the errors made by previous posters in advice.

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.

Not correct. Not only has she not been paying the mortgage but even if she had that would be most unlikely to have created for her a beneficial interest in the property.

Sell it and split 50 50 imo, they were together 15 years, deposit and paying off joint unsec debt is neither here nor there after 15 years.

Sarah is entitled to nothing, so Bob should offer precisely that.

The house needs to be sold or Bob pay what is needed to Sarah and move back in.

Bob owes Sarah nothing.

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)

What is fair? 50% if they were married, sure, but they weren't. Would you gift half the value of a house to your ex?

Did Bob write into the mortgage he would get that 25k back? If not Sarah may be entitled to half.

He didn't need to as he is the sole owner.

Butt out Bob's mum

I would say Bob's mum has the right to be interested in what happens to Bob.

For what it's worth, as a family lawyer, advising clients on these issues day in day out, Bob can force the sale of the house and pocket all of the proceeds.

Sarah won't be homeless as she is about to marry a guy who owns his own property, and is apparently so awash with cash that he'll let someone stay there rent free.

Bob needs to get legal advice. He needs to go in with a list of "what happens if"s.

Main one is what happens if/when his ex's partner and children move in and Bob carries on paying the mortgage.

His ex should really have come to him with the attitude of "things are changing, so how should we proceed". I hope she didn't present it to him as a done deal.

I don't agree with this awful attitude that even pervades her of "They split up and weren't married? Why on earth didn't he fling her out onto the street?" In matters like these what is morally right counts for a lot more than what is technically legally right. It's morally right to keep a child's family life as consistent and normal as possible, as long as it can be afforded.

At a minimum now, his ex and partner should be prepared to pay Bob rent. The partner would be severely taking the piss - collecting rent on a property and living free of charge in a property someone else is paying the mortgage on.

*pervades here

Sound like you raised a good man. But this is Bob's business, not yours.

I'd be wondering if Sarah and her new man could buy Bob out of the house? He carries on with maintenance and laptops and stuff, but has the cash while Sarah has the house which seems to be what Bob wants for his kids.

@Runnerduck34

Both Sarah and Bob need legal advice. Bob shouldn't leave his DC in a difficult position. I think as Sarah is now getting married they should sell the house and split assets 50/50, Sarah should have got her name on deeds and mortgage, but morally if not legally I think Bob should behave as if they were married as they were together 15 years and have DC together. Deposit and credit cards not relevant after all this time.

Deposit and credit cards not relevant after all this time.

So Bob loses out twice? Once on the deposit, and secondly sucking up the debts?

Nope thats not fair

Sarah is now marrying someone else, who has equity in another property.

Bob should calculate how much is fair to give of the equity (or value increase over last 15yrs) and sell house and give Sarah that.

All the time continuing the CM