STBXH being a dick about child maintenance and mortgage

[EdibleGlue]

'D'H has finally agreed to move out after initially dragging his feet. I have secretly been to a solicitor and she has said he need to pay the child maintenance plus his half of the mortgage as we are still both named. He is kicking off about it saying my information is wrong and that he doesn't the need to pay the mortgage as well as maintenance. I'm not ready to reveal that I've seen a solicitor so can anyone point me in the direction of somewhere this is written so I can send him a link?

So he should house his children and his wife, and somehow be able to afford to house himself and his children.
Sounds like someone has been smoking an entitled crack pipe.

Buy him out or sell the house.
The end.

No wonder so many men drag their feet re getting married these days.

@Hrpuffnstuff1

So he should house his children and his wife, and somehow be able to afford to house himself and his children. Sounds like someone has been smoking an entitled crack pipe.

Buy him out or sell the house.
The end.

🙄

Nope. However he should deal with this joint debt / asset. He shouldn't expect to move out & ignore the fact he is a co-owner of a property.

He negotiates an arrangement with his ex, or ultimately it gets decided in court - and he pays his share of the mortgage while waiting.

I can't get over this idea he can make a unilateral decision not to pay but still believe he can stay as the beneficiary to the property. Well, I probably can, as my godawful ex has done this for 8 years as I tried to get matters to court, and am finally nearly there.

If he continues to pay the mortgage then wouldn't he be able to force a sale when the kids are 18 or maybe it's older if they are in full time education?

Wouldn't it make more sense for you to take over the mortgage with some kind of agreement that he gets his equity back later down the line, you would have to give him far less and would have more security in the long term.

If he stops making mortgage contributions while the OP is sorting a single mortgage to buy him out then won't that affect the amount of equity he's entitled too?

What has the solicitor advised your entitled to OP?;50/50 or a slightly hire percentage as the children are remaining with you?

What’s the plan longer term re house?
It’s highly unlikely he’d be expected to pay half the mortgage indefinitely.

I have a slightly different perspective here.

When exh and I divorced I walked away with nothing from our joint house. It had about 80k equity in it. It was his before we met and whilst it had increased I'm value of the 10 years we had been together and I had paid for it entirely on my own for 3 years I chose to walk away. I did ensure his solicitor wrote that as I wasn't making a claim exh wouldn't come after me for 50% of bills once I moved out.

The mortgage company (halifax) took this on board and removed my finances from the equations on the mortgage. They also ensured that the credit file was amended once exh finally had to sell it.

So he doesn't necessarily have to pay the mortgage or even be responsible for it.

However CM is a different matter. Is he self employed? If so getting a fair amount out of the CMS is hard work as any decent accountant will ensure that he looks to earn far less than he dies in reality to avoid both tax bills and cm. Not illegal but morally reprehensible. If he is on PAYE then go after him for an attachment to earnings.

Nope. However he should deal with this joint debt / asset. He shouldn't expect to move out & ignore the fact he is a co-owner of a property.

Just nudge that argument on a bit. It’s his responsibility to pay for the mortgage on the asset he jointly owns AND it is his right to live in it too. But the OP doesn’t want that and she wants to occupy his share of the property. She is getting a benefit whilst he is incurring the cost and being deprived of that benefit.

I can't get over this idea he can make a unilateral decision not to pay but still believe he can stay as the beneficiary to the property.

Again nudge your argument on. I can’t get over this idea that she can make a unilateral decision to benefit from living in his share of the property without paying for it.

She is getting a benefit whilst he is incurring the cost and being deprived of that benefit.

Not really. This 'benefit' is costing her money in terms of the mortgage plus maintaining the property.

She has 2 DC. Who are with her 13/14 nights. Of course they need somewhere to live.

No, she has no right to assume she can decide what happens with the property. That's what mediation & legal proceedings are for.

I can’t get over this idea that she can make a unilateral decision to benefit from living in his share of the property without paying for it.

How is she doing this? 🤔

She's housing herself & DC right now.

Her ex can decide he wants to sell the property & divide equity, or request she buys him out. These are all reasonable courses of action.

What's not reasonable is for him to prioritise his own living arrangements over those of his DC

of course, if she refused to engage in discussions and just expects him to pay indefinitely, that's also unreasonable and it did appear that she was suggesting this in her OP.

In other words, they both need to come to an arrangement. He can't just ignore that he has a financial commitment linked to this property in the meantime.

Child maintenance- easy. Apply for it through CSM and he'll have to pay. Mortgage- it's a joint liability to the Le set so all they care about is that it's paid, not by whom. If he lost his job and you were still together, you'd have to cover the whole thing as the lender doesn't care who does, just that it is. If you end up paying extra into the house after he leaves, this is something that can be addressed during the financial part of the divorce but he can not be 'forced' to cover 50% and you can't just pay 50% as the lender doesn't care.

Nope. However he should deal with this joint debt / asset. He shouldn't expect to move out & ignore the fact he is a co-owner of a property.

I think joint debt is the key here, both parties are equally responsible for ensuring the debt is paid, not just one,

I think people are forgetting that he doesnt seem to have swanned off, he was chucked out, despite OP's attempts to re write history later on in the thread.

How on earth is is someone expected to still pay mortgage, plus CM plus rent for themselves, plus other living costs.

@bellac11

I think people are forgetting that he doesnt seem to have swanned off, he was chucked out, despite OP's attempts to re write history later on in the thread.

How on earth is is someone expected to still pay mortgage, plus CM plus rent for themselves, plus other living costs.

Was he chucked out?

I didn't read this; I thought they agreed to split, at OP's initiation - but don't see why this equates to being chucked out?

Regardless, he still has to deal with his financial responsibilities. Sorry: correction: should as I know many don't, as with my ex

How on earth is is someone expected to still pay mortgage, plus CM plus rent for themselves, plus other living costs.

They reach an agreement regarding the property - they don't ignore it.

What Im getting at is that lots of posters here are presenting the situation as if he just swanned off, opted out, left without considering these things.
By OPs own post, she pushed him to move out and we dont know what he thinks about buying her our or her buying him out.

She pushed him to move out because he felt like he was entitled to continue to sleep with her and she disagreed in what world is that behaviour acceptable? I dont love you but I'm going to sleep in your bed like it or not that is what is going to happen

No thank you