When does a mesher order cease

[stepmumto]

Mesher order was put in place when divorce took place 6 years ago, it hinged on teenager and Older child with learning issues. It stated Maintenance for child 1 and child 2, Mortgage etc had to be paid till teenager was 18 or ceased Education, whatever came sooner and also for older child all the time they were with mother and living in the Former Marital Home and upto fathers retirement.
House sold money was split as new husband did not want fathers name (as a charge) against property he was living in.
Father stops paying mortgage (there is none) and maintenance for older child (no longer living in FMH or a home purchased with the proceeds (well as far as the father is concerned, though the Mother put her money into the property)
wording from court order
Provided as always that the said charge shall not become exercisable in any circumstances whatsoever as long as NAME OF CHILD remains in the full time care of the Applicant (Mother) and lives in any property subject to the Respondent's charge as NAME OF CHILD full time residence.

This occurred 2years ago, but solicitor for mother is chasing father for the money.

So was this legally right?

it's a bit difficult to follow your post, but if the FMH was sold and the proceeds of sale were split, wasn't the charge paid off at that time?

if the charge was transferred to a new property, where the child with learning difficulties still lives, the charge just has to sit there until that child is not in the Mother's care and/or doesn't live in property subject to the charge (eg goes into residential care, I suppose).

is there a separate paragraph that defines how long the maintenance should be paid for the child with LDs? are you saying that the order says maintenance stops if that child moves to live somewhere with no charge on it? that sounds unlikely.

sorry I didn't make it clearer,

FMH sold and proceeds split, but mother has adult child (LD) living with her, there were several exceptions,
Death of applicant
remarriage of applicant
sale of home except if child is under 18 or older child lives with applicant in any subsequent home except for

extract from court document

Provided as always that the said charge shall not become exercisable in any circumstances whatsoever as long as NAME OF CHILD remains in the full time care of the Applicant (Mother) and lives in any property subject to the Respondent's charge as NAME OF CHILD full time residence.

At the time there were seveal queries on the order, but it was always thought if FMH was sold it would not be divided.

Your post is all over the place. Are you asking about a mesher order (house in trust) when the house has been sold, or the child maintenance? If the house, if it's been sold and the proceeds divided, I can't see why you'd have any questions about that.

Once again, sorry I wasn't clearer, I was trying to make it brief as it's a very long story.

A mesher order was placed on the children's home (FMH).

What was the mother's boyfriend (now husband), refused to pay his ex wife, and thought it was great to make investments, and children's father concerned as wanted to ensure there was a home for the children all the time it was needed by them.

To try and ensure there was a home there the ADULT child was classed as a child, with the father paying maintenance for them all the time they lived with their mother in FMH or any subsequent house brought from the proceeds, but there would be a charge on the property (with fathers name) should the property be sold.

So when the property was sold, new husband did not want the 'marriage' money, so father had his share, as did mother, which she put in new property with new husband.

She continued to have the children with her, their father paid for teenager only.

So yes house divided and prior to the mesher order the adult child had never received maintenance from father, they work part time.

So now the mother has sent solicitors letter to father stating he is in arrears with this money and unless he replies stating he will pay arrears and reinstate the payment, he will be taken back to court to enforce the court order.

The house was sold 2 years ago.

Why did the adult child need maintenance? Is that because he/she is unable to work due to the learning difficulties you mentioned? If so I don't understand why the maintenance payments would cease just because the marital home has been sold?

The adult child did not NEED maintenance, but the only way it was thought to be fair to children to ensure there was a home for children for as long as they needed to have a roof over their heads, until they were ready to fly the nest, was to have a mesher order.

The mesher order was put in place for the house and the maintenance for the older child (who works part time) was the only way it was seen at the time to hold it together as child was mid teens. That way the older one could be classed as a child to ensure mesher remained.

Order stated payments made all the time child lived with mum in FMH or home bought with proceeds, but house sold and proceeds split as mother did not want fathers money.

Maintainence was paid for other child (teenager) till they were made so unwelcome in stepfathers and mother new home and went to live with father, but older child still resides with mother.

I'm lost. You're extremely unclear. I haven't a clue who's who.

I think I get it - the dad agreed to long term maintain for a child with disabilities, tied to a mesher order on the property.

As the 2 things were tied together then once the house was sold and mesher order no longer applied, the dad stopped paying maintainenance for the older child.

I have to say int opinion agreeing for a til death (effectively) manta clause was mad.

This needs a specialist solicitor I think.

Yes it was thought the 2 were tied together, little did anyone think he would get his money from the property. It was until a set date (retirement).

This was done as there were other kids living at home (grandchild) too, and the only way to ensure there was a roof over their heads should they need it was to 'class' the adult with learning difficulties as a child and that could only be done within a mesher order.

As it happened all left except child in question as teenager now resides with father as he is not welcome in new home.

why is maint not being claimed for the child now living with Dad?

Father earns more than mother and is now 18 anyway, never thought he could as all he wanted was the best for the child, bad enough the mother had chosen her new man over her own flesh and blood.

it would have been irrelevant who earned more, as she still would have had to pay maint, but never mind, if its too late now, just thought it may have helped, its prob why she is chasing now, so there is no comeback.

So you are you the new wife of the father of these dcs? And you don't like the fact that your dh's ex-wife is chasing for outstanding maintenance for older LDs child. Sounds as if your dh should honour his obligations to his LDs son.

It doesnt to me, if older LD child is adult age, he will be being funded in his own right.

And why didnt the mum pay maint for the other child if thats the case

I am the long term partner of the father, I personally don't know the mother, so have no opinion. if he is legally obliged to pay, he will and I will support him in that. He would never see any of his children without, which is why mesher was set up.

The whole thing was so messy leading unto the divorce, we honestly thought it had gone away. If and this is what he really did think, that the maintenance for this child ceased when the house was sold and proceeds split.

There was nothing nasty intended. Why did she not say, where is my maintenance money for xxxxxx.

Something is going on as they no longer even text about the kids, the kids are cagey about what they say, it's been like this since Xmas.

Anyway, does that mean, what you are saying is, he should have claimed against mother, if this were the case and she is claiming backdated payments for the other child does this mean the father can back date a claim?

I am sure he would NOT do this for several reasons, not least of which is, a larger legal bill, but is it worth a mention in response, or should he leave sleeping dogs etc..

I think, I will get a response drafted for him, saying thanks for letter, out of blue, I will respond, when I have sought advice.

Thanks for replies

Does this person with learning difficulties need support - if he does then I think the Dad should pay, particularly as he's no longer paying the mortgage & had a lump sum out of the house - it is his child too. Legally, I haven't got a clue¬!!!

Not sure what you mean by support, but mother gets carers allowance as child is not capable of unassisted living, but is more than capable of using washing machine etc once shown how to. Has her own case worker if there are users at work, can,t remember which side knife and fork go at work, they now have a template so they can use it. Earns their own bit of money, which mother controls.
Father is well aware it's his child 30+ and had paid and continues to when needed for any of his children.

Can't imagine a court expecting a father to pay maintenance for a disabled child much beyond 19th birthday TBH.

Well the child in question was in their early 20's when the mesher order was made and is now 30+.

Worried that this is going to return to the slanging match that it used to be at the time of the divorce.
Seems it's ok for new husband to be put above anything else and as we heard from one of the kids, he is now on short hours, maybe this is what is behind it.

Yet if it is questioned, as to the intention of the order, father will be all kinds of unfit father (that took in a child she could no longer care for).
In some ways it may just be quieter and cheaper to pay, but worried she may try another angle for something else.

Really have had enough of this nit picking, why can't we just get on with our live peacefully, isn't enough for her to know we take care of the one she couldn't.

Ah - I get it now.

Due to the precise wording of the maintenance order, which liked it to the child being resident in a property the husband had a charge on, you're saying this means that the maintenance order lapsed when the property was sold and H got his share out. You're probably right.

You're wrong though to call the maintenance a mesher order. Mesher refers to the property, not maintenance. Check the order again. If it says that maintenance is payable for so long as the child lives in a property subject to the father's charge, then he can stop paying. Otherwise he can't.

There was a mesher order on the house allowing mother to use the money if she wished on a subsequent property, so long as ADULT CHILD resided with her and that meant father would own a %age of future property if his share was used.
He was told the only way for this to happen was to pay maintenance.

So court order stated he would pay
£x for mortgage
£x for under 17 year old until they were 17 or out of education
£x for ADULT all the time they lived in FMH or any subsequent property with the child save for see my post with bold.
So this was all put in 1 document and this is where the mistake was made, by assuming the payment for ADULT child no longer applied

Well that is until this letter.

Well I'm confused again. If he wants to know where he stands he'd better take the order and go and see a solicitor.

Which is what he is now going to do.

He was worried if the house was sold the kids would get kicked out by new husband, well 1 left due to bad feeling and the teenager was no longer welcome (choose between kid or husband), but as there was no longer a mesher ( as money from father not there), kids no longer had a safe home, so it was 'assumed' maintenance for ADULT was no longer payable.