Who pays the mortgage?

[UnicornMadeOfPinkGlitter]

Hi all. I’ve had conflicting advice and I don’t know where to go next.
so long term relationship not married. Together over 15 years. Joint mortgage.
split up. He left. He was as paying the mortgage as didn’t work and there are two young children (9&7). Now work and pay salary into the account for the mortgage and live off of universal credits.

have been told that as he is a high earner and owns own company that they would have to pay the mortgage in while and maintenance for the children but others have said no he would only be required to pay 50% and then money for the children’s costs?
salary doesn’t cover half of the mortgage so they have been paying more % towards it currently.

but the question is legally what is he required to pay?

this isn’t for me but for a close family relative who has had the conflicting advice from a charity and citizens advice. She didn’t work during the relationship as that was his request for her to be at home with the children. He’s now saying he can’t afford to pay for the house and everything for the children.
if she has to get by on her salary and universal credit there will be a huge disparity between home life with her and home life with dad.
he has them one evening a week and every other weekend.

i have my own thoughts But the hey are just that my thoughts and not pointing her in the direction of what she is legally entitled to.

her salary is not large think around £1000 a month for 20 hours a week. Not really possible to work more hours currently due to children having after school activities most nights and also a lot of weekend. Plus cost of childcare would outweigh any gain in salary even accounting for universal credit paying towards it.

"But needs it for rest and to clean house properly."

A big 4 bed detached is more to clean that an 3 bed semi.

Common law marriage? This type of arrangement is recognised in some countries but not in the UK

On another note it’s interesting that common law marriage is not recognised in the U.K. as many years ago around 27 we were told that we didn’t need to have an agreement in place when we purchased a house as by living together after 5 years we would be considered common law married and as such entitled to same privilege as a married couple.

That's never been true. We bought our first house in 1997 and were advised of this then and again in 1999 when we remortgaged and moved

Whoever told you that sounds very confused. I hope you weren't paying them for professional advice.

Common law marriage has no meaning / legal status in the UK. A very quick google search will clarify that.

Couples who live together are sometimes called common-law partners.

This is just another way of saying a couple are living together. IT’s meaningless legally.

If you want to formalise cohabitation - you can do so by drawing up a legal agreement called a cohabitation contract or living together agreement.

If they aren’t married then it’s 50/50 (if they are joint tenants). If they bought the property as tenants in common - it’s however the agreement was set up.

This is why women who have babies should protect themselves financially through marriage.

They are both responsible for paying the mortgage (assuming they are both named on the mortgage).

Morally - if he’s not living there, then he shouldn’t have to pay. I’m assuming she isn’t paying half of his rent? Nor does he have the value of living there.

It was our mortgage advisor in 1997!

What is most strange is the number of people who push the myth of common law marriage in England. It was abolished in 1753 and some people seem to think that if they lie to people that it still exists, somehow this will result in it being brought back.

It was consulted on over and over (there was a consultation that was run in 1997, another in 1999 and one in 2007) and the government quite rightly decided that it should not be brought back.

It would be a terrible idea to implement that system which is effectively “marriage by default.” With a complex system where people have to keep opting out of the marriage to retain their status quo. The “hard cases” that are cited normally involve some couple who were together 20 years had kids and then an unfortunate death causing an issue, where they know the risks and chose not to get married (or have a civil partnership) and didn’t get wills written correctly. Then when legislation is brought forward (someone in the house of lords tried a few years back) they want marriage by default after 2 years.

Imagine your daughter is living with some guy for a few years at and post Uni and one of you dies (or a grandparent). She break up with the guy and suddenly he can make a claim on her inheritance for a relationship that was just a first living together one.

Well it seems that marriage by default is a thing! It’s now been settled that she can stay until the youngest is 18 and he has to pay the mortgage.

Hmm. No way that's true if they're unmarried 😅

If he's agreed that voluntarily more fool him, but no on can have forced him too, and hopefully he'll change his mind!

I find this incredibly hard to believe.

That’s the news I got today. The solicitors came to an agreement and she can stay until the youngest is 18. She pays the bills. He pays mortgage and council tax and money for the children each month.
I can’t imagine she would lie about it.

Ask your friend to start a plan for the day youngest DC is 18, and her EX takes his house back and she has to find somewhere else to live.

Something is not adding up here

either they both agreed it and her ex agreed to this or someone is telling porkies or ex is incredibly high earner

OP says he earns £100k and rents a 2-bedroom apartment. Another one not buying it as it means he can't buy another property for himself for another 9 years - and why would he pay the Council Tax on top of the mortgage?

I have no idea. I can only report what I have been told but thought I would update as I hate it when messages die and you don’t know what happened and also so many saying this wouldn’t happen.

I also didn’t say I agree with it. I’m not sure what I think would be fair and right but this is what I have been told has happened and apparently it was agreed before going to court as court would be expensive.

we live in the south east and the house is a large expensive house and even on a salary of 100k plus you would be pushed to get a second mortgage especially if as he claims he doesn’t have a deposit and he took a secured loan on a business using the equity in the house as a security. The loan was several hundred thousand. Funnily, well not really the split happened just after the loan was paid to the business.

That’s not because of the marriage. It’s because they have responsibilities for their children. One of the most basic things is to provide shelter for them.

Nothing to do with marriage, that's referred to as a mesher order and comes under the children's act.

He either agreed to this or had a poor quality solicitor. Even on 100k , paying for a 5 bed house and a second property you are living in will be a push.

This is not true at all. They are not married. No such thing as common law marriage. She needs to work more hours as her DC are both at school. If they want after school activities they should be later evening or weekend. She could contact CMS to find out how much he needs to contribute towards DC maintenance as he only has them every other weekend and one night in a week. I'm not even sure he'd have to pay 1/2 of mortgage as he's not living there. Maybe your friend needs to sell the house, split the equity and find something cheaper for her and DC something within her new means. She needs to be working full time then UC would help with childcare after school.

I’ve since updated the thread to say that an agreement was made that he would pay for the house and council tax plus payment for the children until they are 18 when the house will be sold and split equally.
there is a clause that this can be reviewed at certain points and for certain things such as loss of job etc.

In 11 years time, she will have to sell the house and give him 50% of the equity. Does she realise that?

She also has to insure and maintain a 5 bedroom house. There is probably a clause that any future partner cannot move in. This is why clean breaks (on divorce) are now preferred. She might get to live in the house but she's wearing golden handcuffs.