Mortgage and/or Child Maintenance

sprogs

I guess it depends on the area, £435 wouldn't enable you to rent a bedsit in some parts of the country, so sometimes downsizing isn't a realistic option either as the cost of the move wipes out any benefit - it's a nightmare and I really feel for anyone going through it.

But as I understand things the first thought is for the children and if it goes to court their needs are paramount, if the mortgage is cheaper than renting or moving and downsizing are they likely to get to stay in the home with spousal maintenance given to support this?

kelloggs36

£435 would get you a whole house in Chatham lol. In answer to your question, it would depend on their circumstances wouldn't it? I didn't even get any spousal maintenance - he didn't pay his child support either, and I earned £7k per year and had to pay a 46k mortgage at 11% at the time. No tax credits, no help with childcare costs available - I have no idea how I did it! Actually I do, it was my mum who helped with the childcare but I had to pay for everything else, the full mortgage and full costs of bringing up my daughter with no help from my ex, who had left me in debt as he failed to honour our joint loan also, so muggins here paid it all. He lost in the end though, but meanwhile he set himself up with not a single thought to his existing responsibilities - yet still wanted to claim any equity in the property (luckily there was none at the time of sale, actually it was negative equity to the tune of 25k which he was liable for but never paid).

The OP is paying more than is necessary, and if he is happy to pay the mortgage and keep the savings of £300 then I feel he is more than entitled to do so! He could drop the payments by half too and more if he was pushed financially as he has already met his legal obligations towards his children - he then needs to look after himself. It is not the same as suggesting he set himself up first, he is being extremely generous.

PaulBrian

Just to clarify ... I have voluntarily paid an average over £1000/month (considerably more than the £420 CM that would have been due) for a period of 24 months ... over which period the fixed term interest-only mortgage was around £775. It's only in this past 4 crazy months where, now on a tracker mortgage, the monthly repayment has descended to £435 and is giving me some temporary respite. Thank heavens interest rates fell rather than rose as the X would NOT have put anything towards the mortgage! ;-)

sprogs

kelloggs36 wrote: »

£435 would get you a whole house in Chatham lol. was negative equity to the tune of 25k which he was liable for but never paid

OK - I take your point, having done a quick search a 1 bed flat averages £95,000 in Chatham but £210,000 where I am??!!

sprogs

PaulBrian wrote: »

Just to clarify ... I have voluntarily paid an average over £1000/month (considerably more than the £420 CM that would have been due) for a period of 24 months ... over which period the fixed term interest-only mortgage was around £775. It's only in this past 4 crazy months where, now on a tracker mortgage, the monthly repayment has descended to £435 and is giving me some temporary respite. Thank heavens interest rates fell rather than rose as the X would NOT have put anything towards the mortgage! ;-)

All I can say is I wish my ex was as generous as you, well, actually I also wish that my mortgage wasn't a fixed rate as well I guess....

You are definitely paying more than you need to, 'legally' it seems you have no obligation other than the statutory child maintenance. Personally i think you should also be making 50% of the actual mortgage payments - which means she has no right to the 'saving'!!

Soubrette

On a general note - not only should the pwc be paying part of the financial responsibility to the children but the nrp also should, if at all possible, be able to offer more than just money for the upkeep of the children.

It's not really right imo if the pwc has a 4 bed detached and 2 children, payed for by the generosity of the nrp while the nrp has a single room bedsit and the children have to share a bed settee when they visit.

If at all possible (again imo) it is better if both can compromise so the children feel they have a home with both parents if at all possible, I realise that not all parents can afford this of course

Sou

Hawkmoon69

As a scare tactic pay next months mort payment late enough just to create a red letter. Make sure she sees it and then plead your case.

Does she really want to move out?
Is the house on the market?
You are a top dad looking after your kids this way but dont be too much of a sucker. What will be the case if/when you move on and start or begin to support a new family?

Also do not go through CSA. Period!
Let her know what your entitlement is and that if she wants to dispute the mort side of things you will be quite happy to drag it through the courts for the next 2 yrs.
This only as a tactic you'll appreciate.
And don't stop seeing your kids or having them stop over. (every other weekend is a reduction in payments too by the way...not that you have to reduce money, but merely more leverage with your ex)

Good luck

sprogs

Soubrette wrote: »

On a general note - not only should the pwc be paying part of the financial responsibility to the children but the nrp also should, if at all possible, be able to offer more than just money for the upkeep of the children.

It's not really right imo if the pwc has a 4 bed detached and 2 children, payed for by the generosity of the nrp while the nrp has a single room bedsit and the children have to share a bed settee when they visit.

If at all possible (again imo) it is better if both can compromise so the children feel they have a home with both parents if at all possible, I realise that not all parents can afford this of course

Sou

I totally agree, but unfortunately I fear that housing a single NRP against the PWC of however many children means that often the NRP gets the poorer deal. With housing costs the way they are (at least in my area) I cannot see how it is possible to have two family homes on average joe salaries.

Missy_me_3

I think PaulBrian is a very decent Father, clearly and needless to say he is doing over and above what is financially necessary. Clearly there needs to be some mediation to sort this matter out.

I wish my ex would understand that children need paying for. Instead of moving on and shamelessly living a grande lifestyle, whilst his children are fully supported by the Benefit system.

Men like PaulBrian are rare, he is putting the needs of his kids first. (although excessively so). Your ex however gives women a bad name. We are not all greedy and out to get every penny from our ex using CM. Some mums and dads actually want what is best for their kids in everyway. Clearly PaulBrian is one of those men. Well done!!!!

You put so many men to shame!! Many men pay nothing, doing their best to conceal income & give the least they can towards their childrens' financial upbringing.

I hope you manage to sort this out, amicably. Your ex is totally, unbelievably greedy. Get her told!!!

PaulBrian

UPDATE:

Legal settlement 'offers' have been exchanged.

The X has offered me 25% of the net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, as she 'needs' the lion's share to fund a new home purchase.

Taking this same factor into account I have offered her 60% of the net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

I guess from this point forward it's all in the hands of the solicitors to deal with.