Is there a legal obligation to house over 18s at university post separation

[sneezecakesmum]

Paying maintenance is fine, being done already and will continue.

But can a court order the family home to be kept with the mother if the 18 yo DD commutes to a local uni? Or must the DD get a student loan and fund her own accommodation?

DDs father wants to take his share of the 50% joint equity in the FH and get somewhere to live when his DD is 18 at the latest. He is currently living in one room in a shared house, ExP (with DD) has a big 3 bed house.

This should all have been sorted when the parties (sorry, can't quite work out who you are in all this - the father's new partner??) were divorced. I presume there's a Mesher order ie an order that their fmh is sold when the child is 18 or completes secondary education. It's becoming a bit more usual now, though, for the charge to become payable only at the end of tertiary education.

Sorry not to have been clearer. Its my BIL. Him and exP were never married. The final court hearing is in the next month or two. ExP refused to accept a 50% split on the property despite clear documentation - hence court case. There is enough equity for both parties to get a 2 bed property but ExP wants to keep the house for the next 5 years because she insists 16 yo DD will go to uni and that gives her rights to keep the house til then. DD currently in college.

BIL accepts they may order the house stays with ExP until DD is 18 but I have never heard of continuing to house a child in uni between age 18 - 21. Is there a legal precedent for this?

An added complication is the mortgage term ends in Oct this year so will need remortgaging as the capital is still outstanding, but Collaborate, has kindly answered this for us.

We just want to have an idea of the likely outcome or personal experience.

By tertiary does that include a university degree to age 21 or above, or college to age 18?

The former.
Sorry, have to run but will look at this thread againtomorrow.

If he accepts the need to house her until age 18 he should bite the bullet and extend that to end of first degree. The court will - every time. And so will any parent (and I suspect your BIL if he thinks about it).

The thing is BIl and ExP can both be rehoused on the equity (2 roomed properties) - (shared ownership 50K mortgage and £185 pcm rent- they should both get £50K from the equity so needn't get the mortgage side of it). The house MUST be sold, BIL contacted the bank as collaborate advised, and they said the only secured loan on the property was another mortgage, and BIL is not going to be tied to his ex for the next 10+ years. DD at the moment is playing one off against the other (typical teenager) and often says she wants to live with BIL! If they each had a 2 bed property then DD can at least stay with dad no matter who she lives with.

I guess the court will order the sale, but may divide the equity in favour of ExP because of DD. BIL has accepted this but wanted an idea of how long it would be before he could get his share back and possibly get some decent housing for himself, it will be a struggle anyway at his age. The judge did mention fairness and to us it seems fair that everyone is housed adequately and equally, with no need for complicated mesher orders, and a clean break with DD housed and no need to sell up after a year if she doesnt go to uni (which we dont think she will as she's too much of a party girl iyswim)

Anyway you have answered all the questions, so BIL will go into the proceedings without any nasty shocks!

I don't understand why you keep saying that she'll get more because of the daughter. She won't pure and simple, unless she really needs it to rehouse herself in which case he'll acquire a proportionate interest in that property until the child finishes her education. They were never married.

Aaah, missed that bit about their not being married. So has the mum made a Schedule 1 appln?

I mean she will get more of the equity until the DD leaves tertiary education to buy a new property. BIL having to wait for his half share. (Mesher agreement on the new property she must buy??)

I dont think mum has a schedule 1 application in as such.(?) BIL had to go to court purely for half the value of the property as she wont accept they have equal shares and wouldnt mediate. But both their witness statements brought up housing their DD until she is 18 or 21, and I am sure the judge will take this into account when ordering future housing for them all.

His solicitor will also ask for half his court costs because a) it is clearly joint and equally owned according to docs and ex knew this. b) she ignored solicitors letters to reach a fair agreement. c) she lied on her statement saying he had not asked for a house sale when emails were presented from January acknowledging she was asked on many occasions. There are no grounds for it to have gone to court in the first place. What are his chances of her at least sharing the costs?

The ex is apparently self repping again with legal advice via her union. She says she has a solid legal case so doesnt need a solicitor.

i think bil needs to focus on what housing could each of them get and if both could get a two bed property on sale of fmh then argue that a two bed property is entirely adequate for mother and dd.

i cant see that mother can argue she needs a three bed property for her and dd?

bil could present evidence in form of property details of suitable property with prices, so as to spell out how by eseliing, each can get enough tog et two bed property and two bed rpoerpty is adeaute in both cases, and in particualr a two bed is highly adequate for mother and dd to reside in. they dont need a three bed property.

but does exP earn money? who will pay her mortgage?

and he should be housed properly too - so two bed property where dd can come stay

but i think providing a room for dc while they at uni is necessary

cestlavi. We agree totally and there are properties such as outlined in the area (shared ownership) and BIL will give printouts of these to the barrister on the day. ExP is employed and BIL is also employed, making everything fair and also housing both parties. We just hope the court sees this is fair when it finally goes to court.

Can't say where but a 2 bed property (shared ownership) is 50K mortgage, £185 pcm rent. If they both pay of the mortgage side with their equity (100K total) the rent is less than £200 pcm! Thats got to be fair, saves upheaval when DD leaves education, and gives both parties a clean break.

Unfortunately ExP thinks she does need a 3 bed property and BIL can stay in his single room for 5 years, hence having to waste money going to court.

If it seems reasonable to you I hope the court sees it the same way!

she is going to need a good argument for having a three bed property while bil languishes in a shared house.... maybe she needs a home office? or room for her necessary stamp collection????

She says the grandchildren and her children need to visit

She said she wants to see him lying in a ditch somewhere, maybe thats where she expects him to live! He spent 8 weeks last xmas living in his lockup in subzero temps, so basically she doesn't give a monkeys about where he lives.

He wants a clean break and hopes the court will go with the two bed properties x 2 Its been fast tracked so x fingers!

she can get a sofa bed for visitors.