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!

If DC live with you and go to university, their loan will be based on your earnings. Maintenance will stop once they hit 18, so need to factor that in to your calculations.

If you were married you would have access to his savings on divorce. With such different salaries and you reducing your hours after having children you were foolish not to get married.

I would be looking at trying to reconcile, you keep saying how he would need to change, can you cannot compromise. Not like you are going to be able to afford an extrovert lifestyle anyway if you split

Apologies if I've missed part of the discussion, but with 85% or 90% of your equity, you can afford a 35 year mortgage on a £450k house, on £50k p.a. It would be tight, but doable. I'd be seeing a mortgage broker rather than a lawyer and get yourself some security . . . You can always downsize once the kids have moved on, to reduce your outgoings . . .

"Maintenance will stop once they hit 18, so need to factor that in to your calculations."

Statutory maintenance would, but this XP seems the type to acknowledge the obvious fact that children still at home in the uni holidays aren't free. However, he may pay an allowance directly to the older one, or help cover student rent etc. Worth OP discussing this now.

I thought CMS was payable until age 20 if they are in further education?

ETA: Just clocked it's only certain types of education and excludes undergraduate degrees.

@SalsaLights and child benefit will stop too.

@SheilaFentiman he does seem a good egg so I assume he would financially help his DC, but possibly directly to DC not to OP

You have a salary of £50k, have never contributed to the household other than food, surely you have a good whack of savings?
I'd take the £85k and be happy with that.

More than food, pay for the bulk maybe 60-70% of clothes and extra curricular activities. Though he does pay for expensive items (phones, bikes) and buys all furniture and covers house maintenance.

My original query was if I could stay in the home for approx 5 years and if I could negotiate a financial settlement like in married couples.

To the other poster, I'm too old for a 35 year mortgage and 450k would be impossible on my own.

I think you're being deluded to be honest. Staying in the house for 5 years...is basically a mesher order...which are extremely rare.
To give you context, my marriage ended with younger kids than yours now, and I was on a similar salary. Signed off by the court - exhusband bought me out of house (equity share 50/50), pensions shared, no maintenance (50/50 on kids), asset split 50/50. So totally fair to enable both parties to move forward.

The absence of marriage means pensions and other assets don't come into it, only your shared asset.

Mesher orders are also not applicable to unmarried couples, so the only way you could stay in the house for 5 years is if he agrees to it.

You are not married.
If huge sums involved millions and you can afford huge lawyers fees you can spend £££££ arguing children's act but with teenagers unlikely and in any case they will keep the family home but with dad!

You are not married.
If huge sums involved millions and you can afford huge lawyers fees you can spend £££££ arguing children's act but with teenagers unlikely and in any case they will keep the family home but with dad!

I agree with the others. This is a good offer since you aren’t married. I would not waste money on a lawyer if the figures you have given here are correct. You won’t get any more and are certain to get less once you deduct legal fees.

Splitting means accepting things won’t be the same. You are basically asking him to defer housing himself. No court will give you a better deal. Take it

And bear in mind length of time if going thru courts it might drag out over two years .... by then oldest has left home!

As multiple people have explained, unless he willingly agrees to it the route to staying in the family home will be expensive with low odds of success. The supposed benefit of providing stability for the children will compromised by them having two warring parents. And in any case they have a home with their father. They will be able to continue living in the family home. They will be able to live with you.

You wanted out of the relationship; you want your share of the assets and you want to be able to have a home with your children. He has offered you all that. Don’t you see that you are the one causing the problems here for no good reason? And I don’t mean leaving a relationship you don’t want to be in. It is the way you are going about it. Your ex doesn’t legally owe you the privilege of home ownership.

The decisions you made about having children, not being married and sacrificing your career had consequences. As does wanting to be single. You have to own those consequences and you should shield your children from them.

Hi, OP. Hope you don't mind us popping our head round the door to let you know about this AMA we're doing on Monday:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/AMA/5224878-ama-on-divorce-financial-separation-and-co-parenting-with-amanda-bell

Might be useful if you have anything you need to ask!

We’re pleased to announce that Amanda Bell, Co-Founder of affordable divorce platform SeparateSpace, will be doing an AMA this Monday (9th December) covering divorce, financial separation and co-parenting.
Before founding SeparateSpace, Amanda was a Legal 500 recommended family lawyer at a market leading London law firm. She helped hundreds of clients sort out their finances and parenting arrangements following separation. Amanda now leads SeparateSpace - an online platform created by experts across law, finance, therapy and psychology to provide affordable support through divorce

I'm genuinely not asking this to make a dig at you, but early on in the thread, you said that you wouldn't be advising your daughter not to sacrifice her career to raise children unless she were married, because you didn't believe in marriage.

With that being the case, why would you think you could negotiate a financial settlement like married couples who are divorcing? You don't believe in marriage, so why would you think you'd be able to use the potential financial protection of marriage without being married?

Because married or not I still had the children and made some sacrifices to my life whilst he carried on with a career earning a high salary and allowing him to continue comfortably if everything went wrong. That's my issue.

I know I ended it, but I suspect that if he walked out it would make no difference to the situation, but I may have gotten more sympathy here.

marriage provides the protection, you did not marry - therefore not entitled to anything without your name being on a house

you cant touch his pension etc unless married

But you don't get the protections of marriage without being married!

I don't think people are unsympathetic - I suspect it's more likely to be exasperation, because you seem to think you should have the same protections as someone who is divorcing, despite not being married because you didn't believe in it.

Why is it a surprise that you don't get the benefits of something you chose not to do? To put it in more basic terms, if your house burned down, would you complain that you can't claim for it, if you'd decided when you moved in that you didn't need buildings insurance?

You chose to sacrifice your career to have children. You chose to do that without being married. Yes it's unfair your career has taken a hit. But that's why people advise you to marry before you take the career hit from having children - because you are taking a financial risk, and if your relationship ends then you have a legal route to ensure your financial needs are met. Whereas if you are not married, then you have very little legal recourse.

In view of what you know now, would your advice to your daughter change?

You dismissed and disdained marriage, but now want the same status as a married woman. How do you intellectually reconcile that??? Seriously.

You say "married or not" as though they are one and the same status, legally.

News flash: they are far from the same, and this information is readily obtained.

The lack of research and due diligence is astounding.

If you are not married you are not married, law does not work with 'well i say it should be like this- it is what it is

And you chose to make sacrifices

Sympathy does not get you want you want, actual legal advice will help negotiate this

Sure 100 years I presume it matters who left or who cheated (in general) or who did a million things but doubt that works these days

Marriage is primarily a financial and legal contract. That is what matters to the legal system and the government. Any social or religious trappings people add to marriage are personal and largely irrelevant.

if you don’t get married, you have no legal rights. You make all the same sacrifices as any woman who has children, whether you stay in full time work or not. Having children always has a negative impact to a woman financially and she takes the health risk as well. Marriage mitigates the at least a small amount.

you are in a precarious situation, but you aren’t a young woman who doesn’t know any better.

these are the threads we point to when we see young women starting to make these mistakes. I hope you consider using this as a life lesson for your own children so they do more to protect themselves.

Well you may have ‘sacrificed’ things…. But you also massively benefited but not paying the deposit or mortgage or most of bills and still working while paying into your pension

tou don’t get the protection of marriage as you’re not married. It’s that simple. And even if married it’s unlikely you’d get the outcome you want!

you are entitled to your legal share of house (50% less reasonable amount for notional fees) and child maintenance

and as you’re not getting the answers you want youre starting to change the narrative ……

accept what you’re owed and allow the poor bloke his freedom. You are totally unreasonable

You also said he supported the family from the start being the higher earner…… yet now it’s oh he couldn’t be where he is now if I hadn’t of made all the self serving sacrifices. Total bullshit.

and you still earn in excess of 50k yourself. Get some self respect and start actually supporting yourself