Applicable seperation, need a solicitor?

SandC

I think if you are both in agreement with this then solicitor is only necessary to provide the divorce, again as someone has said making sure there is no comeback financially in the future.

However, as you are not planning on simply handing everything over then it becomes more complicated. You will never be fully independent of each other if the house remains in your name but she is the one living there (remember you are responsible for mortgage payments if that is the case).

It is not the case that you have to keep your daughter in the manner to which she has become accustomed. I know many mothers who have had to sell the home because they can't afford to pay the mortgage when it has been signed over to them. And you can't just free up equity and hand over the cash to the other party especially in this day and age.

To be honest, your requirements are not straight forward and I do think you need legal advice.

silvercar

If she came on here for advice, I would say she needs to see a solicitor to get some sort of legal right to the house put on the deeds. There is some Matrimonial Home Act that can be used to register her interest in the property. It would stop you from taking any equity out of the property.

At the moment you could sell the property from under her. Your name on the deeds and the mortgage. (How you conduct viewings with her living there would be difficult.)

The mortgage lender would have to be satisfied that she could afford the mortgage on her own to accept your name being released from the mortgage. They would also require the deeds to match the mortgage. So her mortgage her name on the deeds; joint mortgage = joint property ownership.

The only time I have seen the above rule not apply is when a divorce results in the property being transferred to one party and the mortgage remaining in joint names. (Though they would normally then have been in jont names originally.)

At the moment she has no interest (except to avoid repossession) in paying any of the mortgage; your sole name, your credit rating, your liability.

antony_

> Will you be having her to stay with you in the room that you're renting at > the moment?

no, I would need a flat for that so she has her own room

> At the end of the day, you will no longer be in her life as a full-time father

mother has her 4 days a week, I have her 3, in what way would I not be a full time father? Or would the mother not count as full time either?

It seems to boil down to the fact you can't avoid a solicitor if you have a child so unfortunately that will have to be the first port of call

SandC

I really do think that's wise. As others have said it doesn't matter who contributed what, in that you bought the house before you married or whatever.

You have to consider how you would sign over the house AND get your equity out. Say the house is worth £150k. Your mortgage is £75k so you want say £37k. So the mortgage would then have to be £75k plus the equity that you have taken in cash, which is £112k. Would your wife be given a mortgage on her own at that level? That's the first question to ask.

antony_

I suspect she would be given one, but whether or not she should be is another matter. I just looked at the monthly repayments, if the interest rates suddenly shot up, euch! Ultimately my daughters stability comes first.

Perhaps its better for us if I stick where I am and getting something drawn up so that I get some cash when my daughters 19.
Get her name on the mortgage, she pays for the mortgage as it is now (cheaper than remortgaging) and I get say some cash proportional to how many years I put money into the house (7), assuming a 50/50 basis over those 7 years.

In the meantime I save like mad (hence, staying in the room) ready to get back into the housing market as soon as I can get a deposit together.
There is no ideal answer here.

Got2change

antony_ wrote: »

> Will you be having her to stay with you in the room that you're renting at > the moment?

no, I would need a flat for that so she has her own room

> At the end of the day, you will no longer be in her life as a full-time father

mother has her 4 days a week, I have her 3, in what way would I not be a full time father? Or would the mother not count as full time either?

It seems to boil down to the fact you can't avoid a solicitor if you have a child so unfortunately that will have to be the first port of call

You initially said that you would be "having her to stay" 2/3 times a week - which is a little different from having her "live with you" 3 days of the week. You will no longer be living under the same roof, ergo not a full-time father. I guarantee you (sadly) that it will not be so neatly packaged in reality - seeing it that way is nothing other than wishful thinking.

I won't be posting on this thread again; I wish you all the best but I am not impartial enough.

SandC

Not really no but in the interests of stability for your daughter that might be the best way of looking at it. Don't think about the equity at all, set something up so your wife is paying only the £75k mortgage. Again, you need advice on sorting this out....

antony_

> You initially said that you would be "having her to stay" 2/3 times a week - > which is a little different from having her "live with you" 3 days of the
> week. You will no longer be living under the same roof, ergo not a full-time > father. I guarantee you (sadly) that it will not be so neatly packaged in
> reality - seeing that way is nothing other than wishful thinking.

You can probably see from the other posts that I'm no longer thinking that way as in practice we haven't the money to make it work so I'll drop this

Although in general if both the husband and wife work I don't see the distinction, admittingly it depends on the dad but I was definately a full time dad and in general spent more time with my daughter than the wife did before the split (but as I say its now academic so I'll leave it)

> I won't be posting on this thread again; I wish you all the best but I am not impartial enough.

oops, sorry, missed that bit. I wouldn't have replied here otherwise

galvanizersbaby

antony_ wrote: »

> You initially said that you would be "having her to stay" 2/3 times a week - > which is a little different from having her "live with you" 3 days of the
> week. You will no longer be living under the same roof, ergo not a full-time > father. I guarantee you (sadly) that it will not be so neatly packaged in reality - seeing that way is nothing other than wishful thinking.

You can probably see from the other posts that I'm no longer thinking that way as in practice we haven't the money to make it work so I'll drop this

Although in general if both the husband and wife work I don't see the distinction, admittingly it depends on the dad but I was definately a full time dad and in general spent more time with my daughter than the wife did before the split (but as I say its now academic so I'll leave it)

Antony - just wanted to say that I disagree with the poster's statement in bold - very negative and not necessary so.
I would agree with your thinking above re both parents being equally fulltime in the child's life in the scenario you present.
I hope you can find a way to work things out financially and stay very much a part of your daughter's life.
Good luck

SandC

Yes, me too, especially if you are close by and you were the more hands on parent beforehand. It does all sound very amicable and I know you are asking these questions because you want to avoid the legal route which can sometimes result in amicable arrangements becoming nasty (dare I say often due to the approach of the solicitors concerned?).

However, as you have discovered upon weighing things up, it really is more sensible to get some advice. In fact my first port of call would be to get a clear idea of what is feasible with regards to the house and money situation and agree on that first.