House question and once my youngest turns 18

[Iadoremykids]

Im confused of what my ex is saying or it may be true but i dont trust him.

"There is nothing to sort between us really is there apart from the kids
The house sells whoever has the kids buys a new one with the monies, when the youngest turn 18 that house gets sold and gets split depending on what each put in to the house, everything else just gets split"

I thought if one of us decide to stay in our house with the kids after taking it off the market, once the child turns 18, me or ex have to sell it?????????

Or am i wrong?

How am i reading his message is.....once we sell this house, the monies that we both get , we individually buy our own house. The one that have the kids living with them, once the youngest turns 18, the house need to be sold?? 🤔🤔

Help please?

His message is unclear. He seems to be suggesting you sell your current house and then one of you takes all the proceeds and buys another house but then has to sell that house when DC is 18, which makes little sense and wouldn’t benefit either of you. I think this is a conversation you need to either have in person, with a mediator if you’re not able to communicate practically and civilly, or through your respective solicitors.

Broadly, you either agree that you sell the house now and split the equity, potentially with the shares based on who is going to be providing the main home for your DC; one of you buys the other out and takes over the mortgage; or a mesher order where one of you stays in the house and pays the full mortgage whilst the other remains on the mortgage until the house is sold at a set point. It will depend on your respective legal advice and what you agree.

Is he aiming to have the kids so he can have the house? How old are the kids?

Do you have a big mortgage that you wouldn't be able to cover on one salary? It reads tome that you sell the current house and buy a property for the kids to live in until 18 then sell and split the equity

To me it reads as an emotional detachment issue. Sell the family home. Buy a new one in it's place. Then in future this one gets sold and equity split 50/50.

But that's increasing costs - stamp duty & legals - unnecessarily. Then there's the issue of capital gains. As to one of you, this new place won't ever have been your principal residence.

It's a confusing message and I would say the bigger issue is that he doesn't understand law or finance rather than that he's trying to do anything deceitful.

The closest thing to what he is suggesting (and I'm inferring things here) is:

SCENARIO A

1. That the current house is sold so that both parties are released from the existing mortgage;
2. One party gets all the capital initially to rehouse in a smaller property that they can afford with their own mortgage in their own name;
3. However, the other party has a claim on that capital and therefore has a charge against the new property that must be repaid when the youngest child turns 18.

That does not mean that the parent with the house has to sell, only that they have to repay the charge (for example by remortgaging). The advantage of this solution is that it is quite close to a clean break and both parties can get their own mortgages straight away.

SCENARIO B

Another option is staying in the family home until the youngest is 18. This has the benefit of lower costs for the resident parent as the sale costs are deferred. However, it tends to come at a price to the non-resident parent who cannot get a mortgage and must therefore rent instead (100% dead money and then a shorter timeframe in the future to pay off a mortgage, if they can buy at all by then). As a result, it might be cost neutral to the resident parent, because they are likely to have to share the equity more equally in this scenario. Scenario A might justify a 70/30 split in favour of the resident parent; scenario B is likely to be closer to 50/50.