Not married - house and children

[CoffeeloverNo1]

My ex left over a year ago without warning. Children now 12 and 9. We own the house jointly and equally. We also jointly own a 2 bed flat purchased a few years ago which we rented out but he know lives in.

children remain with me full time and don’t want to stay overnight with him. They do still see him regularly each week though after school and during the day on one weekend day each week.

he wants his share of equity which is approx £140k but I’ve spoke to mortgage advisor and been advised that a sole mortgage for me, max I could borrow means I can only give him £90k. He is saying that’s not good enough and won’t be able to get him a house for him and the kids. He has £50k in savings and earns £80 a year. I just increased hours to full time so I now earn £35k a year.

what I want some advice on is if it went to court and we couldn’t agree between us, what’s the likelihood I’ll be forced to sell. Or do I have any rights to stay there until children are adults? I receive DLA for one and the others is with CAMHS because of the trauma this has caused and him leaving suddenly. Thanks

Why would ex agree to sell the flat? He wouldn’t unkesss house is sold too . It’s the money from that he wants - rightly possibly if he genuinely wants a house suitable to house him and the kids ( irrespective of their current views)
selling the flat might help op finances but not ex and as they jointly own they need to agree

@CoffeeloverNo1 To be brutally honest, you didn’t. Marriage is what would have put them first and given them a better chance of protection. Another poster seems to think you know this, but I’m not sure you do. You are not owed a house by your ex. You are individuals.

All I wanted from this forum was some idea on if it went to court (which neither of us want) then what are the chances of being told to sell the house so he can have his share, rather than just waiting until the kids are older and if they will take into account what the children want and status quo with dad currently.

I thought this was a supportive group of mums , here to help each other.

@CoffeeloverNo1 Ok. But you have made statements that are not exactly true.

Not many divorces allow a parent to stay in the house for years, let alone unmarried parents. With divorced, clean break is the norm and that means selling up property and no further shared financial interest beyond the divorce. He’s an individual and so are you. You took the risk. You have to divide assets and buy again, but you probably would if you were married but you might get a better share of the assets. As it stands you probably won’t. Can you afford to go to court? He would argue he needs the property money to buy a bigger place too. He should, of course, make suitable provision for dc but that doesn’t have to be in this house.

unfortunately it’s a given I believe you’ll need to sell, even in long marriages this would likely happen as the clean break principle is it not?

Sorry I’m confused as to what I’ve said that’s not true. I’ve told my side of the story? What’s not true about it?

Thank you

The biggest determinant in a decision will be can you house yourself and children if this house is sold. If the answer to that is yes, either smaller house in same location or renting as judge doesn’t care if mortgaged or not,. If the answer to that a yes, and it allows your ex more suitable property then there’s. Good chance a judge would require it sold. Not a guarantee but a high chance. If the answer is no then greater chance of being given a mesher type of order.

but there’s no automatic right ( even when married ) and could prove costly trying to argue via tolata and sch 1 laws

Exactly the type of response I was after. Thank you for coming back to me

@CoffeeloverNo1 You seemed to think you had done the best for your dc by not marrying. This is somewhat erroneous. We are mostly saying the same thing - it’s best to accept you will have to move.

I definitely dont think I did the best for my children because I didn’t marry their dad. We both agreed we weren’t bothered by marriage quite soon into our 18 year relationship. That side of it is no one’s fault and just our decision. Little did I know I’d be in this position and would think differently going into another serious relationship.

im trying to do my best for my children to limit anymore trauma to them.

There really isn’t enough information in your posts to say whether the situation would be better if you married. Although he earns more he is likely to have big deductions to his gross pay. Whilst you have access to additional income. What that means in terms of net take home income is what will be considered for a needs case in a divorce. Then he will pay child support to you.

There is a good chance you would be close to 50:50 anyway. The £50k savings would become relevant but I think that would be lost in legal fees if you don’t agree on the fundamental of the house being sold.

People who are not bothered by marriage don’t usually see it from a parental position. They do make the decision for themselves. Children change the situation, and unless the woman is the high earner, she should marry. No one is immune from separation in a relationship and often people don’t see it coming.

@OhDear111 which is exactly why anyone whom is a significantly higher earner should not marry

regardless, there’s no automatic right to remain in the house married or not

there are avenues which may result in this outcome married or not

op should seek legal advise and determine whether it’s worth the cost to pursue based on that advice

@millymollymoomoo I did not say there was a right to stay in the house. I said the opposite and with clean break divorces, the marital home is sold.

However it’s a bit mean to not want to marry and share a higher income with someone you love. It’s a bit “what’s mine is mine and I’m keeping it”. As many women have dc and relinquish high earnings, being married is better protection for the women and dc. If she’s maintained higher earnings, great, and each unmarried partner gets the share they put in, but some partners might have to put up with very unequal shares because they haven’t worked much.

Yes and many women who claim to have sacrificed careers etc never actually had one and come away with assets far in excess of country could amass on minimum wage/low incomes and benefit sundry from the higher earner they ‘support’)

all if this is however irrelevant to the op and doesn’t answer her question.

@millymollymoomoo Never had one because they didn’t get the chance! Managing the dc and fsmily IS work. Why do you think all women are on the minimum wage? How odd. My DH achieved what he did because I did everything else! I’m not divorced but the partnership was equal even if our earnings were not.

It’s a bit mean to reduce marriage to simply a nuptial agreement that creates a financial incentive for someone not to work.

The best thing anyone can do for themselves and their children is to secure their own financial independence rather than depending on a white knight or the state. That will allow them the ability to walk away from any bad situation.

@LemonTT That can be extremely difficult though and so many women do work part time due to childcare. That’s a job in my book and if marriage affords that, great. Women should not be forced to do everything. Having it all is usually doing it all.

I'm my experience... I had to leave the jointly owned own because of the abuse. He still lives there. Myself and the children live with my mum... for two years now. He is a much higher earner than me. A barrister has informed me it is extremely unlikely that I would get the house, I have housed the children, and in the event my mum doesn't want us living here, then I can rent using the 50% equity that I should get from the house.
My kids are 3 and 7 (19months and 5 when we split). I just can't afford court right now and he won't agree to 50/50 and wants way more.
Wishing you luck.

@BookArt55 Why do you have a barrister if you are not going to court?

You're not married. He owns 50% of the house. Yes, you'll have to sell. You're not entitled to stay, the children won't be taken into account because it's not a divorce.

For posters who say marriage is just a piece of paper - it really, really isn't!

@stackhead that is simply not correct

yes it’s 50:50 equity and that won’t change

but courts will consider children and can, and do, give mesher style orders when not married.

whether it would be successful here or not the op needs to take advice from
a solicitor

@millymollymoomoo it’s a completely different area of law and mesher orders are often a big problem anyway.

I know that, I’ve already stated which laws in this thread and advised that these can be costly so op needs to weigh up chances success vs cost.

but it’s not correct that there are no avenues to a mesher style order if not married. There are . And it’s not correct for people to state otherwise or that the children wont be considered. They will