Relationship breakup

Guest101

Mojisola wrote: »

Why escalate to this level when it could have been avoided by him not changing the locks in the first place?

Because she's hardly behaving like an adult?


She's not paying maintenance and demanding money from him to finance her new life?


I would not want such a person to have access to my home (just like I would restrict a Landlord who was not behaving correctly)


It's no longer her home, it is an asset she owns.

spend_or_save

OP your friend should see a Lawyer ASAP and contact the CSA with regards Child maintanence.

If he is unwilling to do this he should write a letter to her, documenting tthe fact she has moved out the property and is no longer paying any mortgage contribution, i would detail the monies he has spent on setting her up in her new pad and also note that to date his ex has not paid any money towards the kids.

I have a mate who is split up with his wife and has bent over backwards to help her and he has basically been taking for a mug, he now has a shocking standard of living, both in respect of his time and money while his ex is living the good life.

Sounds like your friend is a good guy trying to do the correct thing, however is ex is already showing her true colours and in my expierance with my friend, the longer he leaves it the harder it will be and worse position he will be in.

Mojisola

Guest101 wrote: »

Because she's hardly behaving like an adult?

She's not paying maintenance and demanding money from him to finance her new life?

I would not want such a person to have access to my home (just like I would restrict a Landlord who was not behaving correctly)

It's no longer her home, it is an asset she owns.

The children are the important people in this situation - when the adults start behaving like children, things will go bad very quickly.

There are adult ways of tackling her refusal to pay CM and all it takes is a firm 'no' to her request for money from him.

You might think the house is just an asset she owns - that's not how the law sees it.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

They both need to have a grown up discussion about child maintenance and the property. If this can't be settled calmly and sensibly, it will need to be done via solicitors.

Keeping your name on the deeds but not paying the mortgage is called having your cake and eating it; this needs to be formally resolved sooner rather than later as it will almost certainly cause arguments at some point in the future.

Guest101

Mojisola wrote: »

The children are the important people in this situation - when the adults start behaving like children, things will go bad very quickly. - I agree, which is why I said secure the home for the children and contact CMS. Security of the home must be paramount.

There are adult ways of tackling her refusal to pay CM and all it takes is a firm 'no' to her request for money from him. - Which is why I said contact the CMS.

You might think the house is just an asset she owns - that's not how the law sees it.

Actually that's exactly how the law sees it. It is an asset, to which she has access.


By all means correct me if you wish, but make sure your argument stands up to scrutiny.

Guest101

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

They both need to have a grown up discussion about child maintenance and the property. If this can't be settled calmly and sensibly, it will need to be done via solicitors.

Keeping your name on the deeds but not paying the mortgage is called having your cake and eating it; this needs to be formally resolved sooner rather than later as it will almost certainly cause arguments at some point in the future.

I actually don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.


They both have expenses, and if a co-parenting relationship is possible then it's reasonable that her cost of rent is offset against the mortgage.


She cannot purchase a 2nd property (most likely) and is risking her credit rating and her investment.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Guest101 wrote: »

I actually don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.


They both have expenses, and if a co-parenting relationship is possible then it's reasonable that her cost of rent is offset against the mortgage.


She cannot purchase a 2nd property (most likely) and is risking her credit rating and her investment.

I'm thinking ahead to if the property needed to be sold and how the proceeds would be split. It's not an uncommon situation these days, but a family lawyer would be a good start.

Guest101

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I'm thinking ahead to if the property needed to be sold and how the proceeds would be split. It's not an uncommon situation these days, but a family lawyer would be a good start.

No sure.


I do mean though that it could be split 50/50 even after so many years.


If she has 10's of thousands invested in the property, it's only reasonable to get yield on that.

Mojisola

Guest101 wrote: »

Actually that's exactly how the law sees it. It is an asset, to which she has access.

Which she won't have if the locks are changed.

By all means correct me if you wish, but make sure your argument stands up to scrutiny.

I haven't seen any evidence that your argument is right - can we scrutinise your proof?

Guest101

Mojisola wrote: »

I haven't seen any evidence that your argument is right - can we scrutinise your proof?

Law is preventative, it prevents action ( very rarely does it condone them ) - therefore it's assumed you can do something unless it says otherwise.

I cannot prove that someone is allowed to do so by quoting a law.

A good example is public photography, it's allowed. A law doesn't say so, but it doesn't say it's not - therefore we are allowed to do so.