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!

OP, how far away are your parents? Could you move in with them to preserve your capital, and have the kids visit you there? How is the train service between your ex's house and your parents' house; is it reliable enough for the teens to use on their own, between the two homes?

It’s unfair to trap him by keeping him on the mortgage. Especially as this will have financial implications for if he wants to buy a house of his own.

Thankyou for being so clear and direct about this. When I started the post my aim really was to gauge weather to stand up and fight or given there is a large amount of money at stake just move on.

But that is very costly and as others have pointed out, there are no legal grounds for continued use of the house, or more than 50percent split. When you factor in the cash he is willing to advance her to secure a rental, she's getting about 50 percent of the equity of a house she admits never paying toward. Pretty sweet deal.

I think you've had a good deal. I'd take his offer if I were you.

Have you talked to him about it all? Sat down and honestly gone through everything?

I think the fairest way to do this is to add all assets in a pot and divide down the middle, which will include the house equity and all pensions. That's what would happen in a normal divorce. You would look into lifetime earnings, as well, so if your income has been hit by childcare you would factor in that he has time to build his own pension up to match yours, when you don't, for example.

The problem is, you haven't really said what "much higher earner" means. If as a family he's on £120k a year and you are on £50k a year, then what you describe is fair. If he's on £60k and you £50k then I think you need to cover your own rent, and split the house as he suggests with awareness that really he has subsidised your pension provision, so not taking maintenance is the right thing, too.

You need a one off legal advice session, so you can sort this as painlessly and sensibly as possible, and you need to be swayed less by people hammering you and more by the facts of your own history, which only you can know.

Do you actually want to split up, permanently? You say he gave you space, and now has got back in touch and wants to buy you out. Did you see this split as forever, because you are speaking incredibly highly of him?

The ideal situation was to live here, then sell, I could then move out of area, maybe nearer my family where it's cheaper though not a total bargain. With 80-100k that'd give me about a 30% deposit near my parents on a 2/3 bed new build.

You can't just decide to move away without consent, if you expect to have the children living with you some of the time. If you move away, the law would support the children living with him with maybe a few weekend visits to you. You really need to wise up a bit to the situation.

I think OP meant she would have wanted to stay in the current house until the younger child went to uni, and then move out of area.

They're not married, pensions don't come into it.

Why powerless, though? You earn a good salary, and you have a deposit most people would be hugely grateful for. You have an excellent pension - and the kids are close to grown; four years will flash by. Then you can buy your own place, safe in the knowledge the kids can stay with you, or their dad, when they come home. Lots and lots of women would think you are in an incredibly good place for early middle age.

If you aren't happy with him - and it sounds like it was your decision - you are leaving with a great pension, a good deposit for a new home, and a good relationship as co-parents, hopefully. That's a good outcome, after a relationship has run its course.

Life is (we hope!) long and you sound like you have had a fairly happy time raising your kids. You have your own career - mid 5 figures is a career, not a job - and presumably you can increasingly invest in developing that career, now the kids are older?

And even if married, Mesher orders are increasingly rare, I think. They also tie you into the past. Scary as this is, can't it possibly open up a new act in your life? You're only halfway through it, if that, after all.

OP, you don't have any special rights over a father. You need to get your head around that.

As I've said, I anticipated having children would mean it'd almost impossible to remove me from the home whilst they were under 18.

Can I ask why you thought that was the case op? Particularly as he also has children and has left the house.

I think by powerless you mean 'am understanding now I can't have my own way'? Did you think you could split and keep the same lifestyle 'for the kids'?

This is the KEY point about a split - you don't get to have the same life as you had before. The income that had a family sitting nicely will position two families significantly less nicely.

As it is though you are still in a great position. Him staying in the house is great for the kids. You've had these years paying in to pensions and you are still getting a decent deposit. And you earn well. Your ex seems like a decent man. It's all good.

Clearly nobody can enforce a pension split, or any other financial settlement that isn't down to property rights or simple maintenance, when cohabitants split. That's basic law, as it stands at the moment - we have no de facto here, unlike eg Australia. I'm asking what she might want to do if she feels she has ended up in an unfairly strong position, as she implies earlier, and that she doesn't feel okay about that now. I'm also suggesting that that may not be accurate or fair - none of us posting have all the facts, and nobody can know how much more he earns, or how much her earning capacity was hit by the childcare duties.

I think the fairest way to do this is to add all assets in a pot and divide down the middle, which will include the house equity and all pensions. That's what would happen in a normal divorce. You would look into lifetime earnings, as well, so if your income has been hit by childcare you would factor in that he has time to build his own pension up to match yours, when you don't, for example.

This is absurd. They are not married, there is no "one pot" and they have no rights to one another's pensions. You are describing the terms of a split between people who are legally married, but OP doesn't believe in marriage and did not contribute to the purchase or upkeep of the house. Plus it sounds as though including pensions would favour HIM, not her, as she has aggressively contributed to hers because she didn't have household expenses taken from her paycheque.

In my book she is damned lucky that he is being as honourable as he is. He gets kicked out and still is willing to share home equity so that she can afford somewhere for their joint kids to visit her at. AND he is willing to pay to get her into a flat, and for removal. And for furniture.

OP, I am sure it is difficult, but it seems you have been living in a dream world thinking you could kick him out and yet get some sort of court order that allows you to maintain your existing lifestyle at his expense. That wouldn't even fly if you had been married, but is even more unrealistic without the legal protections of marriage. That's what marriage IS. It's not some hearts and butterflies thing sanctioned by the government, easy to disdain, it's a financial contract aimed at protecting the parents of children. You can't retroactively decide you want those same protections.

Who is going to pay for uni?

30/40 odd years ago, Mesher orders were really common. Meant married women got to stay in the marital home with kids until the youngest finished secondary education, when the home was sold and the equity divided along whatever lines had been ordered when the financial settlement was made.

The problem with family law is that it turns on its own facts, with lots of different elements for every family, but people don't know that so assume Aunt Amanda had a settlement when she got divorced, so that's how everyone's divorce must look. And people don't realise, quite often, that unless you're married you have to rely on standard legal principles, generally (not always) in the same way as two housemates would. There is no such thing as common law marriage. Some countries have de facto law, where an extended period of cohabitation confers the same or similar rights, but we don't. At all.

Law textbooks are so outdated they are actively wrong in lots of aspects inside 3 years, too, due to precedents (and to a lesser extent, statute) changing everything all the time. So even if someone is right on the law now, in another five years it could all have changed. That's why legal advice is so expensive - lawyers are constantly training, and updating skills in their specific areas.

She has a large pension. He doesn't.

She would likely end up sharing more with him than vice versa, if their earnings are similar-ish. She said she feels bad as she feels he has borne most of the load, doesn't earn that much more, and has been a very hands on parent - so I suggested she has a think about whether that's true, and fair, in which case she might want to level the playing field - but she needs to think about whether it is true, and fair.

You read what you expected to read, not what I said.

Btw op I’m not being harsh to be horrid. I’m trying make you realise that his offer is not outrageous and to help you see that you could waste a lot of money fighting something you won’t win. Plus of course add a lot of stress and animosity.

of course, this is an emotional time for you frought with upheaval and worry.

if you can talk about this to him and explain your worries about housing etc perhaps you can agree between you a price/fees/some assistance etc

I do wish you good luck

But there isn't anything to fight for? You have a 50% interest in the house - that's it. The fact that you have children together is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. You aren't married and he's entitled to ask for his 50% of the house. You bought it as joint tenants - this is the reality of what that means.

There is nothing that entitles you to stay in it. Even if you were married, the chances of getting a Mesher Order to delay the sale of the property until the youngest is 18, would be very unlikely. Courts favour a clean break unless there are exceptional circumstances. You might have been entitled to a larger share of the equity for rehousing yourself, but your pension would have also been up for grabs.

You need to accept that you can't afford to stay in the house, and find somewhere that you can afford.

Income for him is complicated with bonuses and the like but it is north of 100k.

I'm just a little shell shocked really. If I Google "who gets house between unmarried couples if there are kids" all I see are results like this

https://www.carlsonssolicitors.com/news/2022/12/07/unmarried-couples-rights-when-splitting-up

Which suggests that me keeping the house is almost a given. I accept that given the advice here this is largely untrue, but maybe in special circumstances which for me, there are not.

Perhaps the poster who mentioned clinging on to what happened years ago is what always reinforced my thinking.

But do you understand that if you keep the house (and that's never going to happen)
You will solely be liable for 100% of all bills?

Can you even afford that?

Also did you previously say you wanted him to pay the mortgage and CMS?
If so you really really don't know how good his offer is.

Read the link you provided - it talks about situations where one party does NOT own the house but there are children involved. And it only says that there MAY be circumstances where a claim can be made. Your situation is different.

Go and pay for some legal advice. Rather than relying on what comes up on Google, which is not specific to your situation.

He is a 50% co-owner of the house. You don't pay the mortgage. You aren't married and he has zero financial obligations to you aside from the payment of child maintenance. You could try and claim against him - the likelihood is that you'll waste thousands in legal fees and be no better off.

You need to accept the fact that not being married means you have very little recourse. I'm sorry to be blunt.

This is why you need to seek legal advice.

Family law is complicated, and every case turns on its own facts.

Which suggests that me keeping the house is almost a given. I accept that given the advice here this is largely untrue, but maybe in special circumstances which for me, there are not.

I cannot fathom how on earth you take this from the article you linked? The views here are unanimous - you need to reframe your thinking rather than trying to find “evidence” that backs up your erroneous perception of your position

@brookgreenmum My advice to you is to go and see a solicitor to know your rights.
Don’t decide on what MN tells you. Don’t base it on what your friend tells you.

Get proper legal advice and then decide what’s the best.