Ex wife about to have another baby and living in my husbands house

[ChloeBed]

Hi All
I am looking for some thoughts on this matter, abd I appreciate this may divide opinions, but I am genuinely keen to learn from men and women on their thoughts.

my husbands ex wife is pregnant (this is a very surprise situation), my husband and his EW have 3 amazing children together, none of which are to be honest thrilled about a new baby in their lives, which I get at their ages (they are teenagers).
the legal agreement that my husband has with his ex is that he continues to pay the mortgage on their house until their youngest reaches 18, he also obviously pays CM. We are really involved in the 3 Childrens lives, see them regularly, have daily contact, they are great children etc.. you get the picture. So life was pretty settled, until this bombshell was announced.
on legal advice their agreement is that whilst my husband owns the house and pays the mortgage nobody else can live in the property. This was advised because the mortgage company would not permit another adult living there without more legal costs, deeds if trusts etc. My understanding is that everyone thought this was fair as my husband was paying the mortgage. EW has always been allowed partners to stay, which they have and nobody has says anything - I say this as this was not done as a controlling thing, purely practical from a legal perspective. Obviously, my husbands ex wife is now considering, understandably, moving her new partner in, and we just have a rollercoaster of emotions of what is best to do, first for the children but also financially- because let’s face it his has an impact on the children! My husband has mixed feelings about this. He is happy for her to move on, but feels he shouldn’t be paying an entire mortgage for another guys child and her new guy? When he thinks he gets his head around this, he worries that the house is not big enough anyway, and definitely at least one of his children will have to share a room (2 already do) and none of them are thrilled by this (they are all teenagers, doing exams etc ). However, if he sticks to the legal agreement and ‘allows’ her new partner to move in, this undermines the legal agreement and leaves him vulnerable legally.
Wortg noting my husband will be in for capital gains tax when they do sell, as he has not lived at the property for several years!
EW response is that if my husband ‘forces the sale of the property’ (which I feel is a little unfair as he has totally done all he could, and more and force is not the right word, as this was an agreement she was happy with for several years) then she will have to move far away with all the children to afford a new place.
worth noting that my husband does not contribute towards my house which he lives in, as he cannot afford to whilst paying the mortgage on his former home. We are fine with this, as it feels the right thing to do even though legally he was advised he did not have to when they separated. But we get by, it felt right, we don’t have much left over every month (if anything!) and so it feels if I am honest a little unfair that we are subsidising a new baby and her partner that are not part of this ‘blended family unit’- new partner appears to have no property. I’m trying to judge, but I also understand he has a few (we believe 3 or 4?) children from previous relationship(s) that he sees only ad-hoc.
long post- apologies but I want to give a balanced perspective.
what are peoples views, should my husband stick with the legal advice triggering rather than forcing the sale of the property (If they admit to moving in together?) based on the fact this protects his position, and the house is not suitable for their needs? Or is there another solution that could protect financial interests but let them live in the property (although we know the children are not keen on this anyway!).
Tge property is my husbands, although he has agreed to 50% going to his ex on sale (they were not actually married so he was advised he did not have to offer 50%, but felt that he wanted to as he wanted her to be ultimately rehoused somewhere where his children would still be able to live or visit even as adults - as who can afford a house or to move out at 18 anyway!

I know I shouldn’t feel like this, as everyone has a right to their life, but I feel so sorry for my husband as he’s a good man, he’s always wanted to do the right thing by everyone. We have made huge sacrifices in our relationship too, including not having a family of our own for financial reasons to allow his children and their Mum to live conformably… and all was so well…it feels incredibly selfish of his ex to have a baby (and I know I sound selfish saying that too!) but it has affected so many lives, mainly the children, who I adore and I really am worried seeing them like this and just unsure of what their new family life will be like.
Finally to add, we are happy to offer the children a home with us. But are not going down this route as that feels a little like emotional blackmail too, although I feel this is what she is doing by suggesting she may move away. My husband and I have both agreed that this not the time to enter this into the discussion, as it will just sound like a counter threat (even though it is not!) and we are keen to resolve amicably and practically. Thanks for reading!

I have absolutely no advice to offer as I wouldn’t know what I was talking about but just wanted to say that you and your DH both sound so lovely and I hope you can sort things out and get the outcome that you both deserve

If he is unhappy with the agreement he needs to go to court and try to get it overturned. Ex obviously isn't bothered about the fairness or unfairness of the situation so the legal route is the only way to go.

How old is the youngest child?

Would definitely take legal advice on this because she is being exceptionally unreasonable. FWIW I don't think you and your DH could be considered in any way unreasonable or selfish, in fact their agreement was ludicrously generous (ok cover the mortgage, but giving her 50% of something she has never contributed to? That's a great deal for her)

I'd see whether you could either enforce the existing terms (ie her DP can't live there), whether he could reduce the % she would get on sale to account for her DP living there for x number of years (so they aren't benefitting from your DH covering their living expenses) or see if the kids want to move in with you and cut the ExW and her DP loose.

Lawyer up. Immediately. Agreement needs severely changed.

But the money he's paying in he will financially benefit from when the house is sold or whatever whereas if he was paying towards his living costs now he probably wouldn't.

I agree with pps, he need legal advice asap.
Why is he giving up half his house ? Would it not be better to eventually give a lump sum to each child for their own house deposit ? His ex partner could leave that half of the house to her new partner in her will, and if she died first he might then leave it to his own children. So that needs thinking about now. You husband needs to protect the future interests of his children. He should give them half the house, rather than his ex.
I also think you should not be giving up your own chance of having a baby because of this situation. You seem to be at the mercy of everyone else’s life choices here.

I think your husband should seek legal advice.

Obviously he wants to do the right thing by his ex wife and his children, but subsidising another adult and an unrelated child is another matter, especially if it exposes him to legal risk.

His ex wife has a right to move on with her life but she needs to acknowledge that the agreement they signed up to was based on the situation at the time, and if she wants to live with her new partner and have another baby then the situation has changed considerably and the agreement needs to be revisited.

That said, he should aim to reach a solution which gives his children stability. His ex wife also needs to think hard about how she is going to support herself and her child after your husband's obligation to support her and his children ends. There is every chance that by the time his youngest child reaches 18, the new baby will still be in the picture but the new partner won't.

I think that, depending on the legal advice your husband receives, if it is possible to stick to the original agreement until his youngest child turns 18/finishes school and allow the new partner to live there on the understanding that he is permitted to stay but has no legal interest in the property whatsoever, including as a tenant, that might be the best solution.

Agree with @Stripyhoglets1

Agree legal advice re house but don’t assume what teens will feel about a new sibling. I gained an unexpected sibling in my teens and while initially I found it embarrassing my parents were having another baby and annoyed I had to share a room we all got over that when baby arrived. It was hard enough for my sibling growing up with a massive age gap and fitting in when there were already close sibling relationships and we went off to uni etc. I would be discouraging any negative talk about the new baby around the other children, none of this will be the baby’s fault. Could your DH afford to buy out ex’s share and then rent the house back to her as a buy to let (although would be income and CGT implications) until his dc leave and then he can end her tenancy?

Im confused; how does trying to stop his ex living with her new partner 'secure his position?'

Anyone saying the DH is being generous giving the ex 50% of the property when sold needs to give their head a wobble. No, they weren't married, but she is the mother of his children, and they clearly decided that she sacrificed her career etc or whatever, and is entitled as a wife would be. That private agreement should morally stand. But she now has a new partner and a baby on the way; life has changed, and the property needs to be sold, or the new partner needs to finance expenses until it is. It's a sad situation as the older children are going to suffer, and will resent the new arrival for disrupting their lives. I'm sorry for the OP as much of the fallout of this will fall on her shoulders. You need to encourage speaking to a solicitor ASAP, as you are not financially responsible for this mess and deserve to be happy.

Totally agree. She has done all this thinking entirely about herself and nobody else.

His ex wife has a right to move on with her life but she needs to acknowledge that the agreement they signed up to was based on the situation at the time, and if she wants to live with her new partner and have another baby then the situation has changed considerably and the agreement needs to be revisited.

This.

And you and your DH sound lovely. Really reasonable & generous.

The difference here is that a) op is funding the house herself rather than her ex, b) they are married so assets would be divided by law rather than by way of gift and c) her dh definitely had assets in his own right whereas the man in question may not.

Your thread title and post are extremely misleading. You refer to her as "ex wife" several times but later - buried in a long post - you say that they were never actually married.

This is very important and has a big impact on the legalities. If the house deeds and mortgage were/are in his name only, and they weren't married, she has no claim on the house whatsoever. I think he's been hugely naive and foolish to agree to giving her 50%. What if she marries and that money eventually goes to her husband and not DH's children?

It's commendable that he has continued to pay the mortgage while not living there so that the children can continue to live there with her. However, now she has got pregnant by another man and wants to move him in, it's time to end the arrangement. She's taking the piss now.

Your husband should take legal advice. And he needs to continue supporting his children but not his ex partner.

Such just a funny reply! He’s controlling his ex to the extent he can’t sell his house or afford to buy somewhere to live with his new wife. He’s not very good at this control, is he!

This sounds like a fairly common situation. She’s entitled to pretty much everything until the children grow up or she moves on. It sounds like she wants to push the boundaries and have her cake and eat it too. She thinks the ex husband is too soft to protest. She really should have looked into the situation before getting pregnant. The ex husband should definitely get legal advice. Perhaps now is the time for the house to be sold. Exams have pretty much finished, everyone could be settled elsewhere before next years exams.

Sorry but you have sacrificed having your own children so that your husband could continue paying the entire mortgage of a house that not only does he no longer live in, but he also plans to gift half of to his ex in the future?! I think you’re absolutely mad to have made such an enormous sacrifice. There’s being selfless and then there’s absolutely screwing your self over.

He’s done the right thing continuing to support his kids of course, but she’s a grown woman and has had plenty of time to improve her own situation to support herself as well. I can’t see the justification for him to continue to pay the full mortgage. I wouldn’t have tolerated half of what you have, never mind decided not to have my own kids as a result. I’m stunned.

If mortgage company would accept the ex-wife/partner's new "baby-daddy" moving in, could your H negotiate that he would permit the original agreement to be varied accordingly subject to a variation in the split when the property is eventually sold.

So instead of 50/50, move to say 65/35 to account for the benefit of free housing being provided by the ex-wife/partner to her new man and child.
This may focus her mind a little to consider whether it's more important that he moves in with them all now or whether she denies herself that with the intent of being better off in the long run once the 3 children are gown and flown.

Another point. When he drew up the agreement, the thoughts were perhaps along the lines that the 50% gift would eventually be inheritance to his children. Now that an additional child (perhaps even more, who knows) is coming into the mix, that will change things.

As for giving 50% of the property being generous and needing to give our heads a wobble @AffableApple , he’s paying 100% of the mortgage plus child support and hasn’t allowed himself enough to have another child or even house himself. I think you would have a point if the house had been sold at point of separation but in addition to paying for the whole thing, he also has to pay capital gains on his 50% at the point of sale meaning depending how the agreement is drawn up, he may get less than the ex… this is why it would be advantageous for him to move in… or sell if they separated finances less than 6 years ago as I think there may be a capital gain exemption.

I know a little about this from my own experiences. Those who advise you to take legal advice are right to do so.

Does your partner and EW own the house as joint tenants? Or tenants in common?

My view is that they either need a “clean break” or if she wants to continue to be dependent on him/receive spousal support, then she cannot move in her new partner. This decision is hers and she cannot guilt trip your partner into being responsible for her actions.

Hmmm something is not quite adding up here... if she has 50% stake in the property her name must be on the deeds?

If they aren't married how did they come to this legal arrangement? I'm not sure you could get a solicitor to write a caveat that no one else could live there?

Especially if you're entitled to 50% of the property!

I think he needs legal advice fast and to sell the house. You don't need to offer for the children to live with you now but see what happens re moving away. If EW partner doesn't man up to provide and they do have to move then you can offer to the teenagers to live with you and I'm sure as teenagers they can make that decision. It could be temporary until exams/school is over.
However not having your own children because of this situation for me would be a deal breaker. If you want children then have them and sell the house. You don't want to regret it. You both sound like lovely kind parents to the children too.

Also don't think the mortgage company would give a toss who lives there as long as the mortgage is paid.

@onmywaytooblivion i read it as her being entitled to 50% of the proceeds once it’s sold. Not that she’s a 50% owner now on deeds etc.