Fairness in living arrangements and costs

[Dontaskanymore]

I am joint tenants on the mortgage with my partner. We are not married and have two young children, both under 7.

We are sadly ending our relationship but are committed to good co-parenting and making decisions that are in the best interests of our children.

I assumed we would sell the house and split the remaining money after the mortgage between us so that we could each buy our own property. The plan is that I would have the children 5 nights a week to keep a consistent routine for them. The youngest has minor SEN - suspected ASD.

Another option that we are considering is that I stay in the house with the children whilst their dad finds new accommodation. This would be ideal as I wouldn’t be able to afford to live where we currently do and would be moving further away from our current community.

If I stayed in the current house, the current proposal is that I would pay two thirds of the money required for the mortgage and household bills and he would pay the remaining third.

Other expenses like hobbies and after school club would be paid by him. But id pay for food, clothing, other ad hoc costs with having the children with me - I feel like I can’t go to the local shop without being fleeced by them!

As you can tell, there’s a lack of detail in this proposal and there will be other costs that I’ll need to scope out but so far my partner seems to think a contribution of £1,200 is fair because I’ll get to live in the house.

I adore our house and location and feel very safe here and it is perfect for the children. We have enough space, big garden, walking distance to everything we need and no worries about neighbours or crime. It’s worth a decent amount too and will always appreciate in value as it’s a very sought after area. So part of me wonders if by continuing to own the house together, this is a good investment for him because I’ll be paying more each month but he’ll still walk away with half when it comes to selling it. But then he will have to pay for his new accommodation too and he’s not forcing a sale thereby allowing us to live in our loved home which is ultimately in the best interests of the children.

I’ve said I’m worried about an informal arrangement because what do we do if he wants to sell, who pays for maintenance etc. What about remortgaging? He doesn’t answer these questions (we pretty much only communicate by text now as I find it all quite painful). I genuinely don’t know if this is fair for both of us. He’s reluctant to involve a lawyer unless we can’t agree it between ourselves and has asked me what I’d need to feel comfortable about the arrangement. He said he’d be happy with a signed agreement. He has always been fair financially. My instinct that him paying a third of the mortgage and house bills was not enough as I’ll be paying for food and clothes and other expenses. Two thirds of my salary will be paying for the mortgage and bills so I should be ok. But I’ll need to be careful.

Does this sound reasonable? Are there other things I need to consider or risks with this idea? And what questions do I need answers to?

Sorry for the long message but any helpful comments or advice would be very welcome. I’m sure the main one will be that we need to speak to a lawyer but even before that stage, I want to feel clearer about what is fair.

Thank you very much.

As you are not married your only rights are 50% of the equity of the house and whatever the CSA would calculate as your exs contribution. Perhaps have a look at the calculator to compare with the options on the table.

I would say the plan is a good one for you IF he pays a third of the mortgage AND full child support. Having him pay for some kids stuff and you pay for some kids stuff could get messy.

How much does he earn?

If he stopped paying the mortgage, could you afford it?

Relying on your ex for housing and finances is extremely precarious, which is why courts nearly always award a clean break now. Often it's all fine until a new partner gets involved and kicks off that he's paying "your" mortgage and other costs.

Personally I'd much rather have my home and be able to pay my own mortgage. Even if it meant a smaller house in a different area.

While I understand the reluctance to move house especially with children involved do think longer term how this would work and what could go wrong.

While it might seem like a good solution, what will happen if he decides he can’t pay for his accommodation plus the share or your house? What will happen if he loses his job or becomes unwell and can’t work? What will happen when a new partner is on the scene?

Also things can become very difficult between people very quickly and would you want to be reliant on his goodwill to live where you are, and would you worry that your housing and stability is in his hands?

Things to consider. Look at what it could be like if the current amicable situation changes then decide.

Personally I would rather be in my own place and not reliant on an ex partner.

Thank you. He currently earns twice my salary but he is planning to get a job closer to home so that he can see the children more and feel less stressed (that was a big factor in our relationship breakdown). So he will earn less but probably still more than me, maybe 30% - 40% more.

And I couldn’t afford the mortgage on my own if he stopped paying it.

If that’s the case then you’d be better off selling up now rather than have this utopian idea of being able to remain in the house whilst he wouldn’t be able to buy anything else. Honestly, it’s pretty bonkers. I can guarantee that as soon as one of you meet someone else, the whole mortgage payment thing would cease and you’d be left having to sell the house anyway.
Sell. Sell sell!

This could all end badly. What if he gets a new partner and they want to buy together. He will want to sell up. You may as well have the clean break now.

Thank you for your thoughts and advice. I am reading and taking it all very seriously.

In theory, I can see how thi smight be a good solution. You can't afford to live there alone and you own the house 50/50 so you would, in effect, be paying him rent that would cover some of the cost he has of paying the mortgage. So yes, you'd be paying more while only getting 50/50 out at the end, but that's because you can't actually afford to live there otherwise. And if, for example, you both moved out and rented the house, one assumes that he would be paying less as the rent would cover all or most of the mortgage.

However, I'd be cautious about the informal nature of this arrangement. I'd suggest getting things formalised and agreed. I'd also compare what he's paying towards rent and other costs vs whatever he'd have to pay. An option might be that you change the ownership of the property and you pay him out now in the form of the equity equivalent of the difference between half and 2/3 (at today's value) and he then owns 1/3, on which he continues to pay the mortgage. In which case, that should be seen as an investment and at best, would simply result in tin some slight decrease in child maintenance to cover the fact that he can't get a tenant to pay that mortgage amount on his behalf.

Ditto, formal payments towards activities and child maintenance should be ageed in writing.

That’s not fair for the ex to continue to pay towards the mortgage and his own accommodation no matter what he earns. As others have said it is also a precarious situation to rely on him. What if he lost his job. What if he meet someone else or you do.

So £1200 is a significant sum for him, which makes it even more likely he'll renege.

I would definitely prefer a lump sum from the house sale.

Whilst this may sound good to you in theory, no one wants to move when they split up, realistic its not going to work long term. There's a reason why courts prefer a clean break when people get divorced. As people have pointed out, what happens if he wants to sell early, stops paying his share or either of you loses your jobs? Your relationship is over so you both need to make plans as single entities.

Thank you. This is really helpful. It’s all quite overwhelming and this is adding some much needed clarity.

This arranfement fine in short term but is not valid long term too much could go wrong and you canmot afford the full mortgahe payments. So you should aim to sell up split equity and move.

I personally would go 50/50 on mortgage and if I was staying in the house I’d pay bills and then ex can pay maintenance.
I wouldn’t pay 2/3 of mortgage in an informal agreement because when the time comes to sell (if you ever do) he’d be entitled to 50% of the house sale even though he won’t of contributed 50%

It makes sense in theory - you're in effect renting his half of the house from him. I think I would personally rather have a cleaner break though especially as it sounds like you're negotiating in pretty good faith together at the moment so I would try to reach a proper settled outcome.

Even if you were married, courts like to see clean breaks and mesher orders are VANISHINGLY rare. It means that you are relying on the goodwill of your ex whilst he is stuck in financial limbo unable to move on and into an owned (with a mortgage) home of his own.

In a divorce you would be expected to come to some sort of arrangement about splitting the assets, possibly in your favour as you have the children the majority of the time. The house would likely sell as you are unable to pay for it in your own right (even with maintenance), and you both leave responsible for your own housing needs.

As it is, you both have 50/50 share of the house, he would be contributing a made-up figure towards the mortgage and child costs and you're relying on goodwill, which is already waning.

Sell the house, get CMS sorted. Make the break.

What’s on the table during a break-up rarely survives the reality of separation, especially if one partner is likely to start to feel hard done by.

Could he afford to buy you out and stay in the home himself? That would provide some continuity for the children even if they were living elsewhere with you for some/most of the week.

Usually the best thing though is a clean break. Better to work out what you can afford yourself, with your half of the equity, salary and whatever child maintenance you’d be entitled to. You’ll then at least have peace of mind that you’ve got a sustainable situation for you and the children.

Another vote for a clean break. How would you deal with the sort of things that are part of home ownership which require some combination of time and money. Cleaning, gardening, who pays if the boiler needs to be replaced or if subsidence is found.

do many things to wrong even before he squires a new partner who builds resentment over the costs associated with his children.

It happens so often.

Lots of helpful comments here, but you need a clean break because this arrangement will not work long term.

What happens when you want to start over with a new partner? What happens with his accommodations? He won’t be able to own his own home without a £85k stamp duty tax.

I am in a similar situation and it’s been a nightmare and now lawyers are involved and it’s VERY expensive.

We were never married, one of us stayed in the home and now one of us wants to sell and we can’t agree on anything related to selling the home.

Learn from my mistakes, deal with the short term pain now and release yourself from him. sell the house.

Your problem is that if you die he will get the house, not your children ... as you are joint tenants not tenants in common.

Op, you need a clean break before it is forced on you by the arrival of a new partner. What will happen if he wants to marry? His wife will (not unreasonably) expect them to buy a home together which cannot happen if he is buying a house with you.

It's too messy and insecure. You need to have separate, settled and independent finances for the sake of your dcs.

Assuming you are in England, not Scotland where laws differ, he or you might want to "sever the joint tenancy" so it is tenants in common and you could agree a dfferent share than 50% or whatever you each agree and make a new will right away and change beneficiaries of pensions and life insurance away from the other unmarried partner to someone else in case you die. Hoewver for now you probably DO want to keep joint tenants so if he dies you inherit that automatically outside the estate. Let us assume there is not enough to mean IHT applies.

Sometimes the only way to house children is that one of you has the house and it is only sold when the youngest is 18 or you get married or move a man in. However as peoiple have said above if he wants to have another partner and more children and another mortgage then being tied to ownership of house with you stops his being able to do so so he may well not agree to that.

Do you have a family member like a parent who could remortgage their home to give you money you might otherwise have got when your parent dies, to buy out your partner's half of the house now? Could you get a mortgage yourself? When I divorced (we were married not living together) I earned a lot more than his and could get a huge mortgage (eeek) to buy him out entirely which meant we got a clean break.

It is likely if that is not possible that he remains entitled to 50% of the equity even if house prices double or even if they reduce by half in the next 10 years if you stay tied together like this. However moving into rented and instability and awful conditions in a new place is probably not in yours or the children's interests.
What roughly is your income eg full time minimum wage about £23k or £40k? or £12k? and what is the amount of current mortgage and how much equity in the house?