separation and likelihood of being allowed to stay in family home until child leaves school

[Artemisia2012]

I'm keen to hear your experiences please. Before I go down the costly route of court, how likely is it i will get to keep the family home. It is owned 50/50 but I cannot afford to buy a property on the proceeds should we sell. My partner is financially much better off than me. Would a court be likely to allow myself and child to stay until he leaves school. Partner is unwilling to be guarantor on a mortgage which would enable me to move. Any success stories? Or anyone with legal knowledge?

If that's the only asset, and you can't house yourself and child for less I'd think it was a good chance you could stay. But if you're over housed (i.e. Too many bedrooms, could house cheaper, etc) the house could be sold, but you might get more than 50% on basis of needs. Equality is just a starting point. Don't forget pensions come into it too, and if his is better will be another argument potentially to get more if house.
Courts can do a Mesher order too which is deferred order for sale until child leaves school.

Oh! Just re-read that - I replied in matrimonial basis - were you not married?

If unmarried you'd need to argue that the purpose of the trust was as a family home. Otherwise Schedule 1 Children Act can award property or property funds for use during child's minority - it then reverts to original
Owners. Individual circumstances would determine whether this would be a likely route for court to take.

No, we are not married. I have been looking for a smaller house than our current one, but still too much money.
Any idea what the court costs would be roughly?

Could you afford to downsize with all the equity?

With my share of the equity I couldn't afford to downsize. I can't get a mortgage unless my partner is guarantor but he is unwilling to be. I don't earn enough to get one otherwise and I have no other income, pensions etc.

With my share of the equity I couldn't afford to downsize. I can't get a mortgage unless my partner is guarantor but he is unwilling to be. I don't earn enough to get one otherwise and I have no other income, pensions etc.

Yes, but how about if you had all the equity?

Then it would be easy to afford somewhere. I have always tried to be fair to my partner, but his refusal to cooperate for the past three years, is driving me to seek legal advice. All he needed to do was agree to be guarantor but he seems to go out of his way to make life difficult.

Going through this now...basically there's not enough equity for 2 houses so husband needs to transfer the property into my name however the bank are under no obligation to remove his name from the mortgage so it makes no difference if he doesn't want to stand guarantor, unless you can take he mortgage on yourself he will have to stay on it. Mine has found this out the hard way unfortunately and he's stuck on it until my son turns 18 or I remarry x

I am currently going through a similar scenario, the court has agreed that all of the equity will come to me, so I can secure housing for my 4 children. I can get a mortgage because of income, child maintenance and tax credits, my parents are also giving me some money.
Hope things work out ok for you hon.xx

You need to register Home Rights with the Land Registry asap and see a solicitor. That way you can stop him from selling the house. Good luck!

Thanks for all the feedback. I did get legal advice and it's hard to know whether I would be granted to stay in the house or not. With legal costs of around 40k, It's not really a risk I can take. Also, it seems that not being married actually gives me fewer rights

"Also, it seems that not being married actually gives me fewer rights"

This really, really needs to be better known. You do not acquire a share in someone else's property by cohabitation.

Ignore last sentence of my previous post (things weird here, pages keep reloading and I pressed post in haste, having meant to remove it first)

First of all ignore anything anyone has said about divorce because the law is very different as you are unmarried. Your partner's assets in their own name are theirs 100% and you have no claim on them as are your own. So if the only joint asset is a property with a mortgage if he earns enough to buy you out of your half of the equity in the house then he can do that. If you don't earn enough to support a mortgage he can usually force a sale and you will have to rent until you earn enough to support a mortgage.

The only difference and a solicitor in this area can advise you on this is I think sometimes unmarried cohabitants with a child may get certain rights to stay in the house until they cohabit with someone else under the Children Act. If you do a websearch for Children Act rights and children's home that might get you more information.

I am by the way very very pleased not being married protects my asset. I would never want a man to get a share of my assets or house which is my chidlren's inheritance just because he sleeps here so the fact we have this vast difference between live in lovers and married partners is something in England many people actually I am afraid rather like. It protects female and male assets from partners to whom they are not married. (Scotland has different laws so if you are up there you need advice from someone in that jurisdiction).