How to split, unmarried

[Jenn500]

Been together 6 years and have 2 kids. We bought a house 2 years ago which I kind of regret, renting is so much more expensive but I t would be much easier to split so I do regret it.

I have been sahm for last 3 years but I could possibly return to work in 6 months or so.
My partner paid more into the deposit, I paid about a third and him two thirds. Though legally we own the house jointly.

Do you think I should give him back the deposit or split it in half? I don't see a way out so was thinking of maybe asking parents to buy him out as an early inheritance. Should I wait till I have a job also?
I would only get a low paid job, not sure anyone would be willing to rent to me and not even sure I could get the mortgage in my name even though it Is affordable as its a very long cheap mortgage.

Legally you own 50%
That is what both of you are due

Why can’t you return to full time sooner?

It isn't worth it with nursery fees but it'll be abit easier in 6 months.
I feel like because we've only been here 2 years he should get his despot back , I worry it would create arguments if I said it's 5050. He has supported me as a sahm though I personally feel staying home with 2 kids is harder.

I can't quite see what the problem is. Are you splitting up? You don't say you are. Legally if you're joint tenants you own 50/50. It doesn't matter who paid what, and it's not a case for arguing over.

What is the difference between 50/50 and 33/66 in £ terms.

You are going to need to get a job, otherwise how are you going to have to support yourself?

About 14k me and he about 35k. I will get a job

You need to go 50/50 as you have kids.
Assume that they will be living with you?

@Marmight

You need to go 50/50 as you have kids. Assume that they will be living with you?

The kids would be living with both of them. Their housing needs are the same.

Her moral argument is that she has sacrificed her earning potential to be a SAHP and that needs to be made good. Not that they both don’t need a home to live in when they have their children.

Morals are not relevant particularly
They legally own 50% of the house. That’s what op is entitled to
And despite not being married could in theory argue a need to prevent sale to remain there at least for another few years

@millymolls

Morals are not relevant particularly They legally own 50% of the house. That’s what op is entitled to And despite not being married could in theory argue a need to prevent sale to remain there at least for another few years

With very young children who aren’t tied to a particular school or area will that be a plausible argument.

Also who’s going to arbitrate that decision -there’s no divorce to agree a financial settlement? So OP is dependent on wherever she can agree with her partner.

Whatever

And despite not being married could in theory argue a need to prevent sale to remain there at least for another few years

No you couldn't.

Yes you can under schedule 1 of the childrens act and TOLATA
Harder than if married but still technically possible to get a same deferred

Problem its not just the 35k vs 14k its the mortgage too if you are not in work you will not get a mortgage in your name to take it over and he won't want to remain on a joint mortgage,

Do have a look at the universal credit you are entitled to NOW as a single mum.

£35k vs £14k is not a 66.6/33.3 split
Has the house gone up in value?
Are you on a fixed rate on the mortgage with early repayment charges?

@LemonTT
Where does it say in the Op that the parents are going for a 50:50 childcare arrangement?

The answer doesn't have to be 50/50 (legal) or 29/71 (based upon deposit), and arguably shouldn't be.

The way I see it, they both took in a certain amount of money in each that was individually theirs, but after that point, changes in the value of the property should be regarded as 50/50 regardless of who paid what on the mortgage as it was a joint responsibility & asset.

In the current market the property will invariably have gone up in value. If it had increased by say £26k after the cost of sale and early redemption was covered, then it would seem fairest to me to split that 13k each and add it to what each person took in. In that case the OP takes out 27k and her ex 48k, which is a 36/64 split. If the net 'profit' was higher, say 40k, she'd take 34k and he'd take 55k, a 38/62 split etc...

There is a lesson here for any of us who could potentially put ourself in the position her ex finds himself in (if the law would indeed give the OP half even though she put less down, and she pursued that) is to protect yourself from that happening unless you would be comfortable with it happening.

If I was in his position, my priority would be the kids, but there are no easy answers and nobody can really come out of this sort of situation financially better off than they were together.

Get some legal advice. You own the house jointly, so I would push for 50/50 of the asset.

You haven't worked for 3 years, contributed to NI and a pension etc so you are financially disadvantaged from having children. You may not look at it this way at the moment, but you saved him money on childcare by not working. That's why I'd aim for the 50% that you are legally entitled to.

You might want to look to get back into work asap, esp if you want to get a mortgage.