Ex Partner wants to buy me out - help!!

[brookgreenmum]

Hello all. I was on here some years ago but took a break. Things have changed somewhat, relationship broke down and I'm in a bit of a panic now, looking for opinions really if anyone has had similar circumstances.

Unmarried, together 19 years, two children 17, 14. Separation back in June, he moved out to give me space.

Now he's back in contact, wants to buy me out, reasonable offer about 85% of the actual equity share if we sold it. He paid the mortgage and bills for the whole time and the deposit. House owned jointly 50/50 and I am on the mortgage.

I'm not in a bad position, earn excess of 50k pa, we have approx 200k of equity. I know having the children gives me some power, but the income and equity means I doubt i'll be able to convince a court to stay on till the kids are 18 or so.

Fighting it in court would be at least 15k if I lost according to advice. Friends tell me to fight!

What would people do in this situation? I couldn't go out and buy again in this area, renting is possible. I am really stressed now, losing sleep and hair - didn't think about this tbh, focussed on the kids and thought it'll sort itself out.

Thankyou!

Thing is, it’s not that complex when the couple are not married.

Not always.

According to everyone here, all Lauren Goodman would have got from Kyle Walker was statutory child maintenance. Which is, clearly, legally untrue.

Clearly, Walker is a millionaire, so it's not going to fall into that category, or anything like it. It's about individual circumstances and the reasonable needs of the children, under the Children Act. But as her ex is a high earner (though not footballer level high!) nobody here is in a position to say what the law is, because none of us have the facts. None of us know the dividing line between average earner, and high earner, in either general legal terms, or in the situation for this family, either.

She might be entitled to more, while the kids are still minors. She might not. Nobody here knows, despite an awful lot of armchair lawyers opining to the contrary.

To bring a case under that will be costly. Op owns the home per the deeds, that’s what she is due ( less reasonable notional selling)

plus cms. A ‘normal ‘ salaried person will not be expected to pay the mortgage and bills while op gets sole occupancy rights.

As you say, Walker is a multimillionaire and the XP is a well-paid but 'ordinary' earner, so not the most comparable!

https://osborneslaw.com/blog/lauryn-goodman-kyle-walker/

@millymollymoomoo I'm interested as to why the op would be expected to have the full costs deducted from her share of the equity rather than the costs shared between her and her xdp? Especially as some of the costs wouldn't even be incurred if xdp keeps the property?

Goodman, who describes herself as an influencer, has no formal paid employment, a minority share in her mother’s house, and significant debts.
Walker sits at the other end of the wealth spectrum. His net worth is estimated at £26.7 million, and his income is around £3.5 million – £5 million net per year.
The couple have already been in proceedings regarding their oldest child, Kairo. As a result of those proceedings, Goodman received (among other things) a £1.85 million property within a 60-mile radius of Sussex on condition that the property would revert back to Walker when Kairo finished his tertiary education, or when Goodman remarried or..

Unless op s ex is in that league e.g has more properties they can live in then lawyer fees are hardly worthwhile

No other properties no, but substantial savings. Not a millionaire though.

He could presumably point towards your pension though - if you want to get into a discussion about assets?

The Walker Goodman case was about child maintenance, which was exceptional because he's a high net worth individual and therefore normal CMS rules don't apply. If your ex earns over £3k per week then you can apply to the courts for additional child maintenance - which is what Goodman did.

There’s no discussion about other assets. What’s in his name is his. What’s in ops name is hers. Then joint = 50:50

Again: nobody here knows. Of course Walker is a hyperbolic example. I stated that. I'm not sure why people think repeating it contributes much.

Literally nobody here knows the situation with this family, because genuine lawyers don't advise with such utter certainty without knowing all the facts. (And even then, they hedge around with caveats!)

OP will either have a one-off session with a decent solicitor (and not for the sales pitch half hour) to ensure she knows the facts around her position, or she won't.

Again: nobody here knows. Of course Walker is a hyperbolic example. I stated that. I'm not sure why people think repeating it contributes much.

Largely because OP has form for taking an optimistic internet report as gospel!

Either that or they're not very bright.

Being unmarried, coming away with 85% of the equity in the house is an amazing outcome for you (financially speaking), and I'd grab it.

The Walker case doesn't appear to be relevant here. This isn't a HNWI with large quantities of assets, just a normal (albeit well-off) individual.

Edit: I've just seen that he's actually only offered you 85% of your share of the equity, which is very different. Assuming you each own 50%, you are entitled to 50%, so you need to make sure you get that

Sure.

Honestly, I think the whole thing's a bit odd.

OP is on mid 5 figures. Ex is on six figures, though I can't remember what sort of level. When someone is a top rate taxpayer, issues like Children Act levels of reasonable provision may be at issue. Really, who knows.

What puzzles me more is how a couple who have owned for almost 20 years, and (combined) earn at least £150k pa, and possibly stretching towards the £200k pa mark, are living in a home that she says she could at a massive stretch buy and live in herself even after paying him his share, because the equity is only £200k. 5x £50k - stretch mortgage level, for a single person - is only £250,000, and then her £100k on top in equity (as the suggestion was she could possibly stretch to it after paying back his share), makes the house around the £350,000 mark. What sort of super expensive area, which she says it is, offers both salaries like those, and house prices like those, too?

Perhaps OP has altered the figures for privacy. Because I don't know many families with that level of income, who live in homes that affordable. Especially after being able to benefit from soaring house prices in the last 20 years, while paying down their own mortgage debt. It's called a housing ladder for a reason.

The whole thing is a tad odd.

@perfectstorm they have been together nearly 20 years but have they owned the house all that time? Perhaps they rented for some years. (She might have said and I have forgotten)

But otherwise, I take your point!

No offence, but you have the facts wrong. We rented till late 2017, this was our first house. We held off buying for various reasons. Additionally, it's only in the last 8-10 years where our salaries took off.

And yes, for privacy and other reasons, I won't give away actual income or asset value figures, locations or house prices.

The OP says they purchased in 2017. So they've owned it for 7 yrs.

(Just saw that I x-posted - I was referencing OP's post further up the thread.)

Those are his assets. You will get your share of the house. It’s sufficient to rehouse you and he is helping with that. Go to court asking for more and you will waste your money.

This is the most sympathetic forum you are going to get. It’s not sympathic to your ambition.

Why you want to cause so much angst and stress for your kids is strange. There is little to no financial advantage here

Believe it or not, it's for the security of the children. They love dad and would have no problems living with him but they have stated a desire to stay with me. It would be far easier to stay here, finish off schooling and move on.

Of course, I've not really thought about his side of things. This forum has helped me consider that so thankyou everybody.

50% equity share is fair - it's your legal share of the property. You shouldn't be carrying all of the costs of sale though, particularly if he's buying you out. Taking 15% off your equity share is unreasonable. Any costs associated with the buy-out should be split 50/50 to be totally fair.

If he wants to be generous then he could offer to absorb them. It's not a full open-market sale if he's buying you out though - so he won't be incurring estate agent fees, and presumably could remortgage to take you off the property so he shouldn't be incurring huge legal fees either?

It would be fair to push back. You could ask him to consider absorbing those costs because you need to rehouse yourself and the kids. If he won't then a 50/50 split of costs is fair.

As a quid pro quo though @SalsaLights the exDP is offering to lend a rent deposit, pay first month of rent and help buy furniture for the new place. He doesn't have to do those and they may balance out the fees on the house.

It's worth doing the maths, for sure, but it may be more 50:50 than it looks.

He also paid the mortgage solo for a long time and is paying it now , though not living there

If you’re in a weak legal position (and it sounds like you are, although I agree you should verify that with a good solicitor) then your other option is to negotiate. Using words like “fight” won’t be helpful.

If your objective is to stay in the house with the children for the next 4-5 years before selling then put that to him, but you’ll need to give him something and it doesn’t sound like you’re in strong position financially given all your capital is in your pensions.

If I were you I’d be doing a thorough review of my finances (maybe talk to an IFA) and of all household outgoings and expenses (do you even know what these are?) and coming up with a counter proposal, but be realistic, and be clear about what you’re prepared to trade away.

I can't blame him for wanting to live in the house he's paid the deposit, mortgage and stamp duty on. Especially since the break-up wasn't his choice.

Why should he keep his life in limbo for another 4-5 years because the LW, who kicked him to the curb, doesn't want her lifestyle to change? It's absurd. The kids aren't vulnerable tiny tots and the OP isn't a destitute never-worked SAHM.

No court is going to rob this guy of his rightful share just because she balks at downsizing to a rental flat.

How is fighting their dad to stay in the house good for them. You can afford a place of your own. He is willing to help you get a rental. Then you need to manage within your income.

You are very unlikely to get an order to stay in the FMH. Because you are able to get a place to live with your kids. You just don’t like the option.

You are the one who wants to leave. So get your own place. Take your share of the equity and crack on. You kids can live between both of you. He shouldn’t fund what is your lifestyle choice.