Relationship split with house in negative equity!

antrobus

pinkybluelu wrote: »

Due to the house being in negative equity shouldn't the debt be split, with him having to buy me out with £15k approx?

That's correct, if your parner wants to walk away from the deal it's going to cost him £15k. But as you say "his name will have to remain on the mortgage itself for a while as there is no way I would get a mortgage on my own", so he can't walk away from the deal.

Your priorities should be to keep a roof over your head and that of your daughter and ensure that there is enough money coming into the household to pay the bills etc. As long as the mortgage is being paid it doesn't really matter if you have negative equity; that only matters if you have to sell the house.

I think what you need to do is speak to your former partner and try and agree on how much money he is going to pay you. You have a legal right to maintenance in respect of your daughter. The CSA would oblige your partner to hand over 15% (or whatever) of his net income, although coming to some kind of voluntary agreement is less grief all around.

And check your entitlement to tax credits. As (now) a single parent household on a reduced income, you might now qualify for a higher level of WTC.

pinkybluelu

my ex has said that his solicitor has told him he does not have to pay half the negative equity. i thought he would as like i said before, he wouldn't walk away with nothing if there was 20k equity in the house!! Does he legally have to pay his half of the negative equity?

StuC75

The mortgage will be joint & several; meaning the banks could pursue either of you for any Negative equity. So its not a 'we each owe half basis' --

So whilst the names are on the mortgage he's liable for that.

I would also add that his responsible for half of the mortgage, and that any payment through csa (c 15% of net pay) would be in addition to mortgage commitments...

antrobus

pinkybluelu wrote: »

my ex has said that his solicitor has told him he does not have to pay half the negative equity. i thought he would as like i said before, he wouldn't walk away with nothing if there was 20k equity in the house!! Does he legally have to pay his half of the negative equity?

One, don't take any notice of what your "ex has said that his solicitor has told him" about anything; two, negative equity only matters if you intend (or have to) sell the property. (At which point he might end up with having to pay all of it, and be left chasing you for your share.) Focus on getting your ex to agree on what maintenance he's going to pay you.

antrobus

StuC75 wrote: »

...I would also add that his responsible for half of the mortgage, and that any payment through csa (c 15% of net pay) would be in addition to mortgage commitments...

That's true, but the whole question of the 'division' of the property is made in accordance with what the law refers to as equitable accounting and involves the payment of a notional rent by the occupying co-owner. See http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1746 - it can get complicated.

pinkybluelu

he said he will pay at least the 15% which i am entitled to for my daughter. the mortgage is currently just over 600 per month so does he also have to pay half of this even if he isnt living in the house?! i don't know where i stand on this...

do i take over paying the mortgage all by myself and therefore take on all the negative equity in the house? i know it is not a debt you can see but it is still there if i need to move/re mortgage

Hofmeister

StuC75 wrote: »

The mortgage will be joint & several; meaning the banks could pursue either of you for any Negative equity. So its not a 'we each owe half basis' --

So whilst the names are on the mortgage he's liable for that.

I would also add that his responsible for half of the mortgage, and that any payment through csa (c 15% of net pay) would be in addition to mortgage commitments...

This is correct.

I was in a similar situation, albeit we had equity in the house. My solicitor told me that, as i had a child with my ex partner, she could refuse to move, and i would be jointly liable to continue pay the mortgage until the child was 18 (we were not married), he quoted the childrens act, and said that it trumps all other acts......
Anyway, best advice he gave me was to not involve him, and go and speak to my ex and amicably agree to a fair solution... which we then did (i got off my high horse as i now knew the legal right of my ex).

Basically, i think that if he wants out of the mortgage he owes 15k..... he as to pay his CSA 15% (minus any over nights he has the child). Quick note here though is this, you say you can afford the mortgage, but are the mortgage company happy for you solely take over the mortgage? (this way he is then removed from the documents) I would be surprised as you would need to be earning apprx 40k pa to take such a mortgage?

It is a very messy situation you are BOTH in, you need to try and remove the emotion from it, and come up with a solution to ensure your child is ok. Frankly he is talking from his bottom saying he is not liable for the negative equity, you both are........

You both need to compromise, i would suggest that you both continue to pay half the mortgage, he pays his maintenance, and then once you have reached zero equity you come to another agreement. Your compromise could be (if you could afford it), is that you try and increase the mortgage payments (both of you i mean ) to pay off the negative equity quicker.......... long post, hope it helps.

Good luck
Hof

pinkybluelu

no i couldn't get a mortgage alone on my income, especially with so much negative equity in the house. so are these my options (apart from selling);

* keep splitting the mortgage until the house is out of negative equity (which could well be many years!) and he also pays the maintenance for our daughter

OR

* he pays 15k to clear his half of the negative equity and we get the solicitors to draw up something to say that he is no longer entitled to any equity in the house from a particular date. his name would remain on the mortgage for the time being but we could transfer the house into my name only and i would pay the mortgage alone. he would also pay the child maintenance as well.

Is that right then?

Hofmeister

Basically yes, these are your 2 options.

Whether you can get a solicitor to draw something up for you could be a sticking point. As if you think how this could work, he would still be on Mortgage therefore financially liable, this would / could then affect any future credit he wishes to obtain, ie another mortgage (think 1 -4 years down the line here), it could even affect whether he could rent or not........

I would suggest to him that you try and pay as much of the 30 k off as quick as you can. The problem you would then have, is he then may push to sell the house at this point as he would be clear financially, but you'd still be at the situation where you could not afford to solely take the mortgage on.

Just bear in mind here, that you have the stronger position of the 2 of you, you will be primary carer....... you could choose to stay in the house for as long as you want, and he has to pay (until child 18). The thing is, either one of you can make this as difficult as you want to, ie you refuse to move, he refuses to pay (sod the credit rating etc). You have to come to a compromise, the 2 of you should sit down, and come to an agreement, such as he agrees to pay half etc for 2 years, you have 2 years to change your circumstances - for example higher paid job, so you can take sole mortgage on, and so on.

Just keep talking to each other, and remain calm. But both of you need to be prepared to see each others side.

StuC75

antrobus wrote: »

That's true, but the whole question of the 'division' of the property is made in accordance with what the law refers to as equitable accounting and involves the payment of a notional rent by the occupying co-owner. See http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1746 - it can get complicated.

Childrens Act trumps most of that to be honest.. I almost faced this scenario back in 2001 - but fortunately we had plenty of equity and in the end She came round to the idea of selling - but with a bit of negotiation in terms of the split of equity..