Selling home when child reaches 18 after divorce

January20

Gigglepig wrote: »

legal obligation does not equal moral obligation. I don't know the OP and I'm Not saying OP is a bad parent. but being a good parent is more than not falling short of the legal requirement.

You don't have enough information about the Op's relationship with their offspring for this to be a fair comment.

Homeownertobe wrote: »

He could always get a job? Why should the OP have to give up what he's paid for to keep this lazy pair?

Oh goodness! Get a job? When he could be scrounging off his father for the next many more years? You can't be serious! :rotfl:

January20

Jagraf wrote: »

"String it out" "drag her heels" etc

To be honest we don't know the situation at all either way, the question could just have been " how long could it take to sell the house".

Congratulations on your self respect and independence. Although it is about the children in the end and not about the mother or fathers ego or loss of pride.

The "child" is 18 - eighteen! - not 8!!!
18, you know: able to vote, able to marry, join the army, able to tell his parents to get lost, do as he/she pleases, etc...

Jagraf

January20 wrote: »

The "child" is 18 - eighteen! - not 8!!!
18, you know: able to vote, able to marry, join the army, able to tell his parents to get lost, do as he/she pleases, etc...

I was referring to your post where you were talking about what a brilliant independent woman you are, and I was reminding you that it was about children, not how brilliantly a parent can manage.

This thread will now be either poor mum or poor dad, depending on everyone's circumstances.

OP I tried to buy a house once where a single parent was dragging his heels (18 year old lived with him). It was a nightmare as he even refused to sell at he asking price. The house was a tip.

I don't know the answer, but perhaps go straight to auction?

Jagraf

January20 wrote: »

You don't have enough information about the Op's relationship with their offspring for this to be a fair comment.




Oh goodness! Get a job? When he could be scrounging off his father for the next many more years? You can't be serious! :rotfl:

I could be wrong but I believe the if you are 18 and on benefits, no maintenance needs to be paid. It's if they are in full time education that maintenance still needs paying. Could be wrong though.

Mojisola

Gigglepig wrote: »

legal obligation does not equal moral obligation. I don't know the OP and I'm Not saying OP is a bad parent. but being a good parent is more than not falling short of the legal requirement.

Enabling an adult child to live off benefits isn't good parenting either.

DUTR

Gigglepig wrote: »

legal obligation does not equal moral obligation. I don't know the OP and I'm Not saying OP is a bad parent. but being a good parent is more than not falling short of the legal requirement.

Moral obligation is not law.
Someone who wants to be forever dependent on someone else or the state as an able adult are the ones that should question their morals.

burlington6

If the genders in this story were reversed the comments would be completely different

DKLS

OP your ex sounds a tad like mine, I would recommend getting a solicitor on the job to to force the sale, ring round a few local solicitors and find out who the Pitbull is and go with them.

I wasted 8k using a solicitor whose best suggestion was mediation and wouldn't say boo to a goose. So I swapped to a local solicitor who did a great impression of a pitbull with PMS who destroyed my ex in front of the judge and managed to win me full costs as she had delayed and faffed about so much.

Mojisola

burlington6 wrote: »

If the genders in this story were reversed the comments would be completely different

Not from me.

If a couple divorce and they agree that the resident parent (whether that's the mother or father) should stay in the family house until the youngest reaches 18, then the terms of the contract should be complied with.

Why should the non-resident parent have to pay out a load more money to force their ex to stick to the contract?

Jagraf

Mojisola wrote: »

Not from me.

If a couple divorce and they agree that the resident parent (whether that's the mother or father) should stay in the family house until the youngest reaches 18, then the terms of the contract should be complied with.

Why should the non-resident parent have to pay out a load more money to force their ex to stick to the contract?

I suppose it turns into some sort of squatter issue? I don't know whether there is anything you can do except pay for legal action.