Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

Divorce where only one party owns home

97 replies

Tearingmyhairout82 · 08/12/2023 15:39

DB bought a house in 2017 for him and SIL to live in. The house is in his name and he pays the mortgage. DB and SIL married in 2019 and separated in Jan 23. They have two DS, 9 and 5. SIL stays in the home currently and has a charge against the property. DB initially wanted her out and didn't see why he should have to give her anything, SIL wanted to stay in the house till DS2 turned 18. DB has now offered SIL 20% of the increased value of the home since it was purchased (about £20,000) and SIL is still adamant that she should live there till DS2 is 18 as she is self employed and doesn't think she will be able to buy a house in the area they currently live.

I suspect they are both being unreasonable. DB can't afford anything, buy or rent, while he is paying the mortgage on his house and I doubt SIL could buy on her own with only £20,000 for a deposit.

They have reached a stalemate. DB currently lives with me and my nephews stay 4 nights in 14. Its not sustainable and I am tearing my hair out as neither will come to compromise and there is no end in sight to my current living situation.

Looking for advice/opinions from other people who have been in either DB or SIL situation. What agreement did you come to? Any solicitors out there who can give me an idea of what DB needs to offer in order to break the stalemate without crippling himself?

OP posts:
Original poster
Tearingmyhairout82 · 08/12/2023 16:31

SheilaFentiman · 08/12/2023 16:28

In the meantime, is it possible for your parents to stay with you when DB has his kids and him to stay in their house that weekend?

That's a lovely idea. But DM is having a very hard time with the divorce and we have all had about enough of her.

My shed is starting to look like a lovely option for a weekend get away.

OP posts:
Original poster
Tearingmyhairout82 · 08/12/2023 16:32

Octavia64 · 08/12/2023 16:24

Rented is considered acceptable.

To be honest if she walks away with half of the amounts being talked about she can certainly afford to buy unless they all live in central London.

Its just the expectation of a three bed semi versus the reality of a two bed flat. Or the expectation of moving back into a home no worse off than you were 12 months ago.

If I could bang there heads together to get some sense into them I really would.

OP posts:
Christmasapple · 08/12/2023 16:37

I divorced after an 8 year marriage with 3 children. ExH owned two houses (both mortgaged). I received half the equity from both houses. I was never on the deeds or mortgage for the houses.

tomatoontoast · 08/12/2023 16:40

I would recommend your brother moves back into the house.

He is the one paying the mortgage on it after all.

Regardless or not if SILs boyfriend is visiting... He should just get on with it.

GrumpyPanda · 08/12/2023 16:41

He should never have moved out, massive mistake. As unpleasant as it is, sounds like he can't get around moving back in as long as the ex is blocking progress.

He shouldn't be in the living room though. Kids will have to double up for a bit and he gets one of the bedrooms. The boyfriend has no rights in the house at all, different from the ex, and since only DB is on the deeds I imagine he could habe bf removed by police if necessary. He should get legal advice on that.

SheilaFentiman · 08/12/2023 16:45

"SIL stays in the home currently and has a charge against the property"

I missed this on first read. Do you mean that SIL has taken out a loan with the property as security?

Baffledandalarmed · 08/12/2023 16:47

He should never have moved out, massive mistake. As unpleasant as it is, sounds like he can't get around moving back in as long as the ex is blocking progress.

Agreed.

Sure I will be lambasted (and if it was a woman who owned the house I wouldn’t be) but unless she’s significantly contributed to the house she needs to go and accept the £20K. His money/his house - why should she get any sort of financial settlement just by having married him? Children can stay with him whilst she gets herself settled.

Original poster
Tearingmyhairout82 · 08/12/2023 16:50

SheilaFentiman · 08/12/2023 16:45

"SIL stays in the home currently and has a charge against the property"

I missed this on first read. Do you mean that SIL has taken out a loan with the property as security?

Maybe I have used the wrong term. She has something with the land registery that shows she has an interest in the house so she can't be removed, has a right to live there, and is notified if it's sold.

OP posts:
Original poster
Tearingmyhairout82 · 08/12/2023 16:52

GrumpyPanda · 08/12/2023 16:41

He should never have moved out, massive mistake. As unpleasant as it is, sounds like he can't get around moving back in as long as the ex is blocking progress.

He shouldn't be in the living room though. Kids will have to double up for a bit and he gets one of the bedrooms. The boyfriend has no rights in the house at all, different from the ex, and since only DB is on the deeds I imagine he could habe bf removed by police if necessary. He should get legal advice on that.

I don't think you are wrong. But he is not keen and I can see it exsclating to cries of abuse and police involvement if he did.

OP posts:
SheilaFentiman · 08/12/2023 16:54

Tearingmyhairout82 · 08/12/2023 16:50

Maybe I have used the wrong term. She has something with the land registery that shows she has an interest in the house so she can't be removed, has a right to live there, and is notified if it's sold.

Show quote history

Ah, OK. I know that anyone (creepily!) can registered to be told if a property changes hands, I didn't realise it was possible to register a right to live somewhere without consent of the LR owner.

PumpkinsAndCoconuts · 08/12/2023 17:17

Tearingmyhairout82 · 08/12/2023 16:06

I will suggest that to DB. I just think they are both living in a fairy tale land where they will get exactly what they want if they just stomp there feet hard enough. Meanwhile I have seven people in my three bed house every other weekend 😐

Show quote history

Making it clear that he can´t continue living with you might give him a bit of a reality check!

YouCantBeSadHoldingACupcake · 08/12/2023 17:17

As it was purchased during their relationship, when they already had a child, and they have since used it as the marital home, she has a good case for half of the equity. Your brother might want to reconsider his offer as £20000 is very low compared to the £70000 she could potentially get if it goes to court

Whataretheodds · 08/12/2023 17:22

Baffledandalarmed · 08/12/2023 16:47

He should never have moved out, massive mistake. As unpleasant as it is, sounds like he can't get around moving back in as long as the ex is blocking progress.

Agreed.

Sure I will be lambasted (and if it was a woman who owned the house I wouldn’t be) but unless she’s significantly contributed to the house she needs to go and accept the £20K. His money/his house - why should she get any sort of financial settlement just by having married him? Children can stay with him whilst she gets herself settled.

The law disagrees. They are married. Marital assets are shared.

BoohooWoohoo · 08/12/2023 17:28

Is your brother using a lawyer? Remind your brother that it’s better that money goes to the ex and children rather than solicitors and barristers.

Not living in the property is just delaying the day that ex realises that she can’t afford the house and her ex isn’t legally obliged to pay.

DivorcedDiva · 08/12/2023 17:28

I know they have only been married for 4 years...but if they have a 9 year old then their relationship is at least 10 years and your DB bought whilst they were together and had children. I wonder if this would impact on how the courts would see the equity split and be more inclined to 50/50 as when I was getting divorced I was asked how long the relationship was prior to divorce and my ex got half of assets earned prior to being with them.

Coyoacan · 08/12/2023 17:30

Whataretheodds · 08/12/2023 17:22

The law disagrees. They are married. Marital assets are shared.

Show quote history

Thank heavens.

CormorantStrikesBack · 08/12/2023 17:34

How much equity is there in the house in total? If it was sold is there enough equity they could both afford to put a deposit down and get a mortgage? I think courts will want to see them both housed with space for the kids, but it could mean they’re both in a considerably smaller house. But with a ten year plus relationship it’s likely to be 50/50.

DidiAskYouThough · 08/12/2023 17:40

Well they need to actually start the divorce process. The wife ignoring letters does not mean he has to stay married.

Him living in your house and making up imaginary, pretend scenarios in his head is just silly.

Original poster
Tearingmyhairout82 · 08/12/2023 18:03

DidiAskYouThough · 08/12/2023 17:40

Well they need to actually start the divorce process. The wife ignoring letters does not mean he has to stay married.

Him living in your house and making up imaginary, pretend scenarios in his head is just silly.

I agree. I think it's in her interests to drag it out as long as she can. I am assuming she is saving money whilst not having to pay rent and hopefully maximizing her earnings to put her in a better position to get a mortgage.

I think the general consensus on here is 50/50 would be the starting point at least and her not owning the house doesn't actually mean anything. Also a relief to here she is unlikely to be allowed to live there payment free for 13 years.

OP posts:
TizerorFizz · 08/12/2023 23:21

The house will have to be sold. It’s pretty straightforward. What is silly is the 50/50 childcare. Few men manage this. Most do 5 out of 14 nights. No wonder there’s a housing shortage with everyone who’s divorced wanting two homes for dc. Someone should have a smaller property! That way, the money will go round.

YireosDodeAver · 08/12/2023 23:38

The fact that only his name went on the deeds is irrelevant, it is still a marital asset.

Although the marriage was relatively short, the fact that they had kids together before marriage shows it was a longer relationship and the courts will probably award a 50 50 split for all assets.

The courts are unlikely to agree to her wish to be allowed to live in that home until the youngest child is 18. Such orders can happen but are rare and generally only when the non-resident parent has sufficient income and assets to provide an equivalent home for themselves. More likely the courts will order the house to be sold and the equity to be split 50:50 which will be much higher than your DBs measly offer.

50:50 care is unlikely to be in the children's best interests and is iften only pursued by a parent who wants to avoid paying CM. Why is your DB putting his personal financial interests above his children's best interests?

Monstamio · 09/12/2023 07:03

When did they start living together? If they lived together for a seamless chunk of time before getting married (which I'm assuming they did given the age of the children) then that will be added to the length of the marriage in the court's view. Which means the house is a marital asset and will need to be split. The fact they have children together also means the court is likely to take a very dim view of your brother trying to claim the house is solely owned by him.

I suggest your brother moves back in and signs up for mediation to make things as amicable as possible with his ex for the sake of the children. They will need some ground rules - e.g. his ex needs to visit her bf at bf's house not have him over to the family home. Then they will need to make plans to put the house on the market, split the money and go their separate ways.

Rainbowqueeen · 09/12/2023 07:30

They need to start mediation to get things moving. The mediator might get them to see sense. Their shared income now needs to support 2 households so they will both be worse off. That’s what happens when you divorce.

The best he can hope for is 50-50. And to be honest that sounds perfectly fair

Flopsythebunny · 09/12/2023 07:32

SheilaFentiman · 08/12/2023 16:45

"SIL stays in the home currently and has a charge against the property"

I missed this on first read. Do you mean that SIL has taken out a loan with the property as security?

I suggest that if you don't know what having a charge on a house means, you don't give any advice

BrimfulOfMash · 09/12/2023 07:32

So they had a live together relationship much longer than the marriage, in which they had the two children?

Your Db is a piece of work with his ‘my house my mortgage’ entitlement if SIL was taking maternity leave, undertaking childcare for their children etc.

No way would I take his offer seriously.

They need to apply themselves properly to the divorce process , financial mediation etc. Has she got a lawyer? If not, it might speed things up if she gets one, and your Db saying he needs to move back in might prompt her…