Can He Throw Me Out.

rpc

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Why? Like it or not. She's got a claim on the house. That claim is harder to enforce if she leaves.

She has a right of occupation until (and only until) the divorce. Once the marriage is dissolved, that right is extinguished.

She also has a claim to a share of the equity as part of the marital assets. That is totally unrelated to the right of occupation. It also isn't diminished by moving out to live somewhere that doesn't have a toxic atmosphere.

tinkerbell28

rpc wrote: »

She has a right of occupation until (and only until) the divorce. Once the marriage is dissolved, that right is extinguished.

She also has a claim to a share of the equity as part of the marital assets. That is totally unrelated to the right of occupation. It also isn't diminished by moving out to live somewhere that doesn't have a toxic atmosphere.

Utterly false.

Laurajo_2

FBaby wrote: »

Maybe because he knew she would have found out anyway. I might be fooling myself, but I am 99% certain that I would know if it happened to my OH. Smells, attitude, behaviour, lack of answers to questions etc... Only a natural liar could hide it from a partner who isn't completely oblivious or uninterested.

Or maybe indeed, because it was totally out of character, but there is no such thing as a 'stupid' mistake with guarantees. The moment you make a mistake, stupid or not, you face potential negative consequences. Some are able to forgive and move on, others are not.

This. It was, for him pretty out of character, and he felt awful about it...plus he was acting differently, not in a tangible way, but I knew there was something amiss. I know there are people who can move on from such things, but to me, I would be questioning him every time he went out and always doubting and second guessing...so it was best to call it a day.

rpc

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Utterly false.

Really? It is quite clear in Family Law Act 1996 s30.

An order *could* be made under s33 of the same Act, but to what benefit? The application could backfire and remove the home rights too. This route is also the one that the ex might use to evict.

Absent any order to the contrary, s30(8) stipulates that the home rights will end when the marriage ends.

s33(6) sets out the basis for deciding to make an order, but with no "relevant child" you are only left with hardship grounds and OP has not suggested that there are any. s33(6)(d) may provide a particularly interesting argument (it requires the court to take into account "the conduct of the parties in relation to each other and otherwise").

If this is Scotland then similar provisions exist under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act.

So please feel free to explain why my post is "utterly false"

Pollycat

I think the difference in opinion on this thread about what the OP will be entitled to/can do/can't do just goes to show that she really does need to get proper advice from the people who know - the legal profession.

tinkerbell28

Moving out makes an order more difficult. So if that's what she's going to want to do she shouldn't leave. The right to remain in the house doesn't distinguish on divorce at all. If the op applies for an order.

I know someone who was in this exact position and is still in the marital home 5 years on.

So suggesting her right to remain will extinguish end of. It utterly false. Depends what she does.

She needs legal advice and I wouldn't be making plans to leave, until she does.

frilly_knickers

FBaby wrote: »

Maybe because he knew she would have found out anyway. I might be fooling myself, but I am 99% certain that I would know if it happened to my OH. Smells, attitude, behaviour, lack of answers to questions etc... Only a natural liar could hide it from a partner who isn't completely oblivious or uninterested.

Or maybe indeed, because it was totally out of character, but there is no such thing as a 'stupid' mistake with guarantees. The moment you make a mistake, stupid or not, you face potential negative consequences. Some are able to forgive and move on, others are not.

He had to tell me about the affair because of the termination, he paid for it, and it would have been impossible to conceal the money leaving our account.

Pollycat

Have you done anything about getting some proper legal advice?

I think it would help you get things sorted in your mind, maybe ring round and see if you can get a free session with a solicitor.

Or try CAB.

Have things improved at all?

Has he mentioned divorce?

Could he be acting this way to try to punish you and when he thinks you've suffered enough, he'll forgive you?

frilly_knickers

Pollycat wrote: »

Have you done anything about getting some proper legal advice?

I think it would help you get things sorted in your mind, maybe ring round and see if you can get a free session with a solicitor.

Or try CAB.

Have things improved at all?

Has he mentioned divorce?

Could he be acting this way to try to punish you and when he thinks you've suffered enough, he'll forgive you?

I have an appointment at 4pm today.

rpc

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

The right to remain in the house doesn't distinguish on divorce at all. If the op applies for an order.

You mean If the OP applies for an order and if the order is granted and if the judge stipulates that it will last beyond divorce.

Your anecdotal evidence is clouding what the statute actually says.

OP does not have a home rights order, so her right to occupy will extinguish upon divorce. Indeed, if she leaves then it would require a home rights order to grant her access to the house again.


In the case of a SAHP with kids and no independent financial means, a home rights order would be very important and likely to be granted.

A financially independent individual (as OP seems to be) with no relevant children has little need to maintain residence in the marital home and wouldn't appear to gain much from it. Courts only grant orders for anything where they perceive that justice is better served by granting the order than it is by not granting one.