Recent separation, house his on deeds and 2 x mortgages-can I make him pay these mortgages AND get maintenance??

[Hotlips99]

Help!! My long term unmarried partner left me last year after 16 years together. We have two daughters (12 and 14) who are mainly resident with me (he has them 1 to 2 nights per week, is living in a house share with others) He inherited the house that I am still living in by his late father, with no mortgage outstanding at the time but during our 12 years there, he took two mortgages out (consolidation of debts, upgrading the house etc) and both home loans are in his name only. The house is also his and his alone on the deeds. Since leaving me, he has continued to pay both the mortgages (£625.00 pcm total) from his separate bank account but is now saying I should not be asking for child maintenance on top, which I want. I want £300 pcm to help me out with the girls. I work three days weekly part time, get WTC, CTC and CBen and effectively I live rent free. He is clear he wants the children to inherit the house and that I am in no danger of having to move out until both daughters come of age and decide what they want to do with the property. He is happy for me to live there rent free with him paying both the mortgages as long as I pay for the council tax and all the household bills. He says he can't afford to give me £300 pcm as well, as it would take £900 pcm out of his wage a month. He earns £26K gross per year? I am going to see a solicitor as I want that maintenance as well. I feel he should be paying HIS mortgages on HIS house anyway, is responsible for the roof over our heads, that I should not have to pay anything towards HIS mortgages on HIS house AND that HE should be giving me separate child maintenance too! Am I wrong? What is my position legally? Has anyone else gotten the all the mortgage paid AND maintenance on top? Thanks in advance.

Above all OP, if you need more money then work more hours. The children aren't small, no childcare costs involved. Many of us have done it since our kids were born AND paid a rent/mortgage. You are at an incredible advantage to the majority of separated couples who weren't married. He simply doesn't have the money to give you another 300 per month.. Be really careful because as you suspect, he will be moving in with his new gf, she will soon discover why he has so little money...once she starts in his ear about 'how he really only owes you maintenance' and 'why don't we live in the house you pay for'.....there is absolutely nothing legally to stop him evicting you and the kids and moving into his house with his new gf. A horrific state of affairs which you would think is completely unthinkable. However I have experience of this is the most horrific way - which I have oft told on here as a cautionary tale.

Three yrs ago my best friends 'husband' left her and their four kids. They lived the charmed life. Huge house 2 foreign holidays a year, private schools, four figure income (although self employed so buggier all for cms purposes)..
She had been sahm since first child born. When he left, 2 at Uni and 1 doing A levels and 1 aged 14. She had always wanted to marry, he didn't see the point in a piece of paper . The long and short of the horrific breakup was that she was entitled to fuck all except to remain in the house until the youngest was 18 as long as she paid rent.
He had to pay CMS on two kids for a year, then one, by that point the rent was more than the maintenance. (He generously 'let her off the difference !) She had to return to work full time - basic office admin about £20k a year plus benefits.
Next year she has to move out as eldest is 18 and off to uni. He gives all the kids an allowance and paid the school fees but nothing direct to his ex as not legally obliged to. She could have moved out of the big house, paid her own rent and received cm but the emotional tie to stay in family home for the sake of the kids was her choice - not the smart one in this case because the bills on a big house with a small income is very hard going.
When she moves next year into a small 1 person flat - which is all she can afford..she will have no space to house the kids in the uni holidays.. Or older ones as they marry and have grandkids, - but hey-Ho the children can go and stay back in their family house with their father (52) and their Stepmother (28) whom he married 6 weeks after leaving, seeing as he didn't have the inconvenience of a divorce to impede him.

This is the consequence I continually bang on about. Really stupid to have kids without the legal protection of marriage especially if you are financially dependent or the economically disadvantaged one.

My advice to every (mostly ) woman in this situation - whilst the law on cohabitation remains the same- do not agree to have children, which is a lifelong commitments if your dp cannot make (what is now-a-days, ) a temporary commitment to marriage in order to protect your rights. A refusal to do so, will give an early heads up that he isn't in it for the long run and protecting your rights is not a priority.

Good post Marilyn, but very sad.

Fair in my mind is when the expectations you had as a couple with children are still met even when the other spouse decides it's time to bail out
So men can expect their ex-wives to continue to be their full-time sexual partner? Of course not. What you mean is that 'If a woman someone benefits financially from a relationship, they should continue to do so after the relationship ends'.

You can go to CMS and get maintenance for the DC however he may then sell the house/evict you (and the DC).

You need to speak to a solicitor about the housing situation - I'm not sure a judge would support an application to evict his DC from their home? After all at the moment their is nothing to stop him moving back in is there?

I think he should be paying some maintenance for the DC on top because he is merely investing into his own investment by paying the mortgage - he could probably remortgage and extend the term/find a better deal/go interest only so his monthly payments are lower. He must have a large mortgage on a short term for it to be £600 per month?

because he is merely investing into his own investment by paying the mortgage
And so what? That isn't really an accurate characterisation of what is happening, but even if it was true there is nothing morally wrong with that. OP is getting her own rent paid for her, and her ex is covering both his and her financial contribution to housing the children.

The house is going straight to the children, so he is:

• housing the OP, which allows her to work only 3 days a week
• paying his share towards the children's accommodation (in mortgage)
• covering the OP's share of the children's accommodation
• paying towards a substantial inheritance to the children

He is living in a houseshare, FFS and people would have him have less than half his salary to support himself. What's that thing people always say here about working out what's fair for SAHM? Count the hours of leisure time. I suspect he doesn't work 3 days a week.

I think he should be paying some maintenance for the DC on top because he is merely investing into his own investment by paying the mortgage

But he doesn't get to actually live there. I think he is being both generous and reasonable. The OP has 4 days off a week, lives rent free, gets more than she is willing to admit to on this thread and still wants to leave him with less than he can live on, despite working full time.

I agree Random.

Dharma, please don't presume to 'know' what I 'mean'.
I would say the same regardless of sex.

The parent left behind with the primary responsibility for the kids should be properly and fairly supported.

What the law says is 'enough' is not always 'fair' in a moral sense.

But the OP was not married anyway, so doesn't even have the protection that that bit of paper provides.

But what does "moral" mean? People have different morals. I think it's morally wrong to financially cripple the ex, leaving my children sleeping in a house share 2 nights a week while I only work 3 days a week and live rent free to be honest.

But what does "moral" mean? People have different morals. I think it's morally wrong to financially cripple the ex, leaving my children sleeping in a house share 2 nights a week while I only work 3 days a week and live rent free to be honest.

I agree.

If OP pushes him too far, he is likely to put it in the hands of solicitors.

Which could well end up that she has the right to remain in the DC's home until the youngest turns 18, but she would need to pay a proportion of the market rent. OP needs to do her sums: which leaves her better off? Waived rent? .Or proper rent paid but CM received?

The NRP should pay at least the CSA (or whatever it's called now) minimum rate, abated for the nights the DC are with him.

OP may well find that she is less well off under those circumstances, but at least she would know that his obligations are being met. Any remaining goodwill is likely to be destroyed by her taking that course though.

The 'right' to remain in the property is, btw, not absolute. If he is otherwise financially crippled, he may be able to successfully resist any application by OP for a legally binding order permitting her residency in his property.

There is absolutely no guarantee that the DC will ever inherit the house or anything else so that isn't an argument that holds any water at all.

The fact that the mortgage repayments are so again could well be for a number of reasons.

If the op was renting for herself and the dc she would probably get partial housing benefit and may have a house that is cheaper to run etc.

The ex has chosen to move out and into a bedsit - his choice because he has decided that is preferable to staying and making a house share arrangement with his ex...

I don't think it's simple enough to say as his mortgage payments are so high then he shouldn't pay maintenance.

He could have as little as £10k debt that he is paying off over 5 years or similar and he could easily change that through re-mortgage to different terms.

Also all those years that the op has looked after the dc have facilitated him working and having a career whilst she is left employable in minimum wage positions and having all the day to day responsibilities and work involved in having dc and absolutely nothing to show for it at all.

It's just not cut and dried.

"Also all those years that the op has looked after the dc have facilitated him working and having a career whilst she is left employable in minimum wage positions and having all the day to day responsibilities and work involved in having dc and absolutely nothing to show for it at all."

OP did not marry, which meant that she was excluding the possibility of that type of contribution being recognised. She may indeed have done all those things, and he may have benefited from it handsomely. But it's totally irrelevant as they are not divorcing.

Marriage is not 'just a piece of paper', and more than deeds of a house are 'just a piece of paper'.

So setting that aside, yes of course he should pay the appropriate level of maintenance for his DC if they are living with OP more nights than with him.

But he can also reoccupy his house, and if he did that OP would need to cover her own rent. It sounds as if he isn't even attempting to do this, and has offered rent free for a number of years. That is a good deal.

OP does need to think about what each scenario means for her income and costs.

There is no such thing as a common law wife. The OP does not gain any legal interest in the property by living with him for so long. It doesn't sound like the OP made any large financial contribution to the property. All she has is permission to occupy the property, which can be revoked at any time.
Legal representation would be expensive. There would be no legal aid.
I know it doesn't seem right, or fair, but that's how it is. The situation regarding his future intentions needs resolving though. If he marries his wife becomes his next of kin and takes precedence over the children.

And all of those reasons are why I would suggest she asks for maintenance because there is no guarantee he will honour anything...

Yes she has no legal right to anything, all she has a right to is maintenance!!!!

People are commenting how wrong it is for her to ask him for money above temporary free accommodation, yet it is okay for him to have potentially fleeced her for "free" childcare for years...

As was said above ensuring your financial protection especially once children are involved is essential. Had he not inherited they have bought a house together and now she would have 50% of that equity provided she had put her name on the deeds.

"all she has a right to is maintenance!!!!"

This is a bit pedantic, but the only right is to child maintenance, which in practice will be paid to the parent with which they reside until 18 (or other endpoint by agreement). She has no right to maintenance for herself.

"yet it is okay for him to have potentially fleeced her for "free" childcare for years..."

If OP was coerced, then that would be a travesty. But if she made these (non-marital) choices freely, then he did not fleece her.

Fleeced her for free childcare?! I've heard it all now. I presume his income paid all the bills, anything nice they ever had etc etc.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the OP asking for maintenance but she MUST bear in mind that if she does, the ex may need to move back in to HIS house to afford the payments.

If he marries his wife becomes his next of kin and takes precedence over the children. Unless he makes it clear in a will that his children will inherit.

If he rented out that house, how much would he get each month? In many cases that's more than the mortgage.

That's what you are getting from him.

Unless he does some very fancy footwork with trusts and the like, most homes of married couples are regarded as 'marital assets' regardless of whose name is on the deeds or when/how they were acquired . Willing some thing to ones children, which may become only half of his to do as he pleases with, does not guarantee the kids will inherit the house . Once again, this is why marriage is so important. All you cohabiting, economically disadvantaged/sahms/low paid pt workers please read this thread and then go do the paperwork ! - a mid-week, registry office wedding with a couple of witnesses costs £125 all in, in my area (expensive south-east). The best investment you could make if you have kids/savings/his property... The expensive reception can wait. The 'piece of paper' really is 'that important'

yet it is okay for him to have potentially fleeced her for "free" childcare for years

Jeez.

Would you also say she 'fleeced' him having him pay the bills and living completely tent free? No thought not.

Why is it ok for one half of a couple to have done all the "unpaid" work for a family for years and receive absolutely nothing in return whilst the other person works equally as hard (not harder) and walk away with equity worth hundreds of thousands???

Ignore the inheritance issue I just loathe this attitude that someone who works longer hours giving their all to their partner and dc deserves nothing financially?

It's not about gender it's about that raising dc and doing all domestic chores is seen worthless by so many people of both genders.

If you employed a housekeeper and a nanny to replace the SAHP it would cost in many cases far more than the SAHP could earn.

In this case it's irrelevant as they're not married the op is entitled to nothing.

However if the Ex rented out the property is monthly income would go up and she'd receive more maintenance! Ultimately for a few years of not living in the property he will still walk away with equity of well over £100k (could be £500k for all we know) and the op will get nothing and the dc nothing.

It's not that it's worthless (we don't actually know who contributed what and we only have one side of the story). It's that it has no legal standing. Either way, the ex is currently contributing more than he is obliged to, just by way of free rent than by maintenance.

Ultimately for a few years of not living in the property he will still walk away with equity of well over £100k (could be £500k for all we know) and the op will get nothing and the dc nothing

He intends to leave it to his children. It doesn't say he's keeping it.

MissBattleaxe - what if he meets someone else? Remarries? Has further DC? Turns out he already has other DC? Becomes unwell and it all goes on care home fees?

I would hold no store on the DC getting the house in the near or far future - he may have the best intentions at this moment in time but these things regularly unravel over time.

Simple op. You don't like the current arrangement, save up and move elsewhere. He will still have to pay the mortgage or sell up and you will get the £300 a month you want.

However, with an income of around 1.5k a
Month (wages and around £800 in tax
Credits) you would have to pay full rent which could equate to £600+ a month.

So although he isn't giving you money directly, he is saying you more a month than what you think you are entitled to.

And it doesn't matter if he gets married and the children don't get the house when they are 18, she is still saving cash.

The op also has to think that if she comes across as nasty, grabby or whatever, when the girls are old enough they could easily kick her out.