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!

But yeh if he buys you out kids get to stay there half the time anyway!!

I'm in a better position with a pension, he is paying the minimum for some reason, I've been paying into two, my father has always been big on this so taken his advice. As for housing, yes, I may be in a bad position but I suppose I won't be single forever so things may change?

So.

He's been paying off the mortgage.

You've been paying in to a pension.

You want him to share the house more than 50/50 with you and to pay for you to live there, whilst he pays 100% of another house for himself.

Are you going to split your pension with him then?

Does he want 50/50 with the children, or will you get money for them?
Remember so long as in collage he would need to pay...

I suppose I won't be single forever so things may change?

Your financial plan shouldn't depend upon finding another man to subsidize you.

It’s a good thing that you have a good pension as you may need to pay rent/mortgage into retirement. I am
not too surprised that he is paying in the minimum if he is covering the full mortgage.

Fundamentally, even if you had been married, both parties are usually worse off after a split because running one household is cheaper than running two.The kids may have to do fewer clubs etc. Suggest you look at a budget for yourself and what level of rent you could manage. Cut back on pension contributions for a while if you need to.

Would you really factor in another bloke as part of your future financial planning?

I expect the mysterious reason he pays the minimum into his pension is HE HAD TO COVER THE WHOLE MORTAGE AND BILLS

Look, there’s no point berating OP about not paying towards mortgage and bills in the past, sounds like she paid some of the children’s costs which are also bills. It was on her DP to raise it if he thought it was unfair.

The point is the here and now.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are just being naive, then I think you need to face reality. You made an active choice not to marry, meaning you are entitled to nothing other than 50% of the house and maintenance depending on your split of the kids.

Your idea that you would get to stay in the house with him paying 50% of the mortgage and maintenance, while he then has to also fund a full house somewhere else is bizarre. It's not based in any sort of reality. It's also incredibly unreasonable.

You are confused as to why he hasn't been paying more into his pension but that's presumably because he has been paying for the house in full. You have managed to pay lots into your pension because you have only been paying for optional extras despite a good salary.

The fact he is still paying the mortgage in full while not living there is generous of him - how long has that been going on? You should have been paying 50% from the day he moved out. What is that worth? Is he going to carry on paying this until the transfer happens? More benefit to you if so.

Honestly, get some valuations to check you are getting a decent deal. Be sure you know current size of mortgage to ensure the equity is being calculated correctly. And if so then take the deal.

If a woman came on here saying that she paid all of the deposit and mortgage on a house despite her ex having a good salary, had continued paying the full mortgage despite moving out, had been under paying her pension as a result, and had now offered to pay 50% of the very top possible amount of equity once costs had been deducted to take over the house to keep the kids in it, plus first months rent and deposit on a new place - she would be advised that she was being taken advantage of.

It almost feels like it can't be real.

As for housing, yes, I may be in a bad position but I suppose I won't be single forever so things may change?

Yeah cos relying on a man worked so well before.... seriously OP have you no self respect?

Offer him half the equity - as you're not selling on the open market you won't be incurring selling fees so it isn't clear why theoretical fees should be factored in to his advantage

I would query why he'd incur stamp duty, but some other costs like solicitor seem a but low. I think you have to take his offer. Courts.wont favour you - not married, 18 year old won't "count", your decision to move on.

Can you not afford to buy him out? Do the sums carefully as it would be worth making sacrifices for in my view.

Sorry, that came across poorly, I'm not that type, honestly.

I suppose that is right, again, we got together at quite a young age and in the first half of the relationship he wasn't earning anywhere as much so probably why he only pays very little into the pension, he can now, but he way always quite dismissive of it all.

He has asked me to contribute in to the bills in the past but I refused, my argument being I have always been the main childcarer and if he had to pay child care in the early years so I could work FT, he'd have been in a worse situation.

I don't think they're many more men out there willing to financially support someone earning 50k who wouldn't contribute to anything then expect more than 50% in a split!

Where is he living at the moment?

I’m sorry OP but from what I’ve read it seems like you have massively taken advantage of him financially over the years.

I think his offer is very reasonable.

Quite. My point was that your ideal scenario wouldn't play out even if you WERE married, you can’t possibly believe this is realistic when you are not. Did you seriously not know the protection marriage gives you?

I can't be the only one thinking that OP has taken her ex for a ride.

OP, initially people want to fight whatever they see as an injustice, even the injustice is just change itself. As time marches on, you figure out that all that energy and stress you put into fighting didn't really get you anywhere, and in your situation, may leave you worse off. It sounds like your ex is being reasonable and is being pretty fair. He didn't have to continue paying the full mortgage on a property he wasn't living in and, whilst I can understand you wanting things to remain stable for the children, he's not unreasonable to think he can't keep his life on hold and pay for two properties for years. Children adapt.

If I've understood correctly:

• 'your' 50% of the property is £100k
• Your ex has been paying the mortgage in full for the last 6 months, despite not living there. (I know that horse has bolted now, but this was time you should have spent figuring out your next steps, so you weren't in such a panic now.)
• He wants to buy you out for £85k, plus give you first and last month's rent for your new property. What would rent equate to? In my area (SE), those 2 months would be about £5k if you're looking for a 2-3 bedroom flat.
• Of the £10k left that you feel you'd be losing out on, you'd have to deduct the costs to invest the TLC you say the property needs, estate agents fee and solicitors fees for the sale of the house, as you pointed out.
• So what you're really debating about fighting him for is about £5k?

You would definitely spend more than that in legal fees, and you'd certainly sour the relationship you have with currently.

The OP owns the house jointly, in equal shares. She's explicitly said so. 50% of the equity is hers.

She's also said that he is a far higher earner, and most of her own earnings have gone on paying all the children's expenses. She earns less because for a long time she worked part-time, caring for the couple's children.

They are a family. Two teenage kids, a family home that is half the OP's, a long life together. She has paid most of the kids's costs, he has met overheads for the house and bills. Not unusual in many, many marriages. She earns so much less because she took a career break. Why is that contribution being completely ignored?

The answers here are based on her being 'lucky' to be offered less than half the equity she actually owns, after a 20 year relationship and the lion's share of all childcare and child cost responsibilities.

He can afford to buy her out and live there. She can't afford to do anything but rent, to keep a roof over her children's heads for the remaining 4 years in school. She's simply asking for him to pay half the cost of the mortgage on an appreciating asset, while she covers everything else, until the kids have left, and then they can sell and she can get her half, and so can he.

He's got no costs in this purchase. No searches, no surveys, no removals, and will be able to remortgage rather than purchase mortgage, too. He gains from this financially, yet he's placing all those saved costs on her side of the balance sheet, by offering her less than her legal share. He is gaining the equity he isn't paying her, on top of retaining his own 50%, when he's fully aware all she will be able to do is rent - step off the housing ladder altogether. And women here would bite his arm off? Really?

It's half her house. They own it in joint shares. She has contributed to the family home because she was the primary domestic carer. No marriage means that isn't recognised in law, so it's lucky they own the house jointly. But why people are saying she should be grateful to be offered less than she owns in equity, she she will have to leave her family home and rent, after taking a significant lifetime hit on her own earnings to raise shared children, is beyond me.

OP, you need proper legal advice. Emily Watson at Raydens is amazing. She's also super kind. I would book a one-off advice session (it won't be cheap, because 'free' initial chats are sales talks, pure and simple) for her to go through where you stand. Then you can decide based on legal facts, and not a lot of knee-jerk, and at times frankly misogynist, opinion on MN.

As for housing, yes, I may be in a bad position but I suppose I won't be single forever so things may change?

😲😲

Is this a troll thread?

I’d snap his hand off and move on while things are amicable - he could start talking about pensions etc if you have been building yours while he pays all the mortgage

Have you not saved ANYTHING at all?

He could, but as they aren’t married, he wouldn’t have any claim on hers. The
house is different because the deeds record the 50/50 ownership regardless of who paid.

OP, don’t forget to redirect any death benefit that comes with your pension or other financial instruments to someone other than your exDP

The more you write the more grabby and deluded you become

you have no rights to remain in the house until children are older ( not even if married) and to expect him to not live there, continue to pay 50% of mortgage and bills and maintenance ( and his own rent elsewhere. Utter piss take and one that won’t materialise