Fair Financial Separation (not married)

Hard_food_for_midas

mark5 wrote: »

Be carful if you do this, I had a friend who let his ex keep the house instead of paying maintenance, she re mortgaged the house, wasted the money then the csa come chasing him for maintenance, not sure what happened in the end though as we lost contact.

thanks for the warning!

Hard_food_for_midas

I'm struggling to understand how the quote button works, so I'll just answer the points you raised generally.


You're correct about how to fill out HR1, thank you. I've checked with Land Registry and though some people think it only strictly applies to married/cicl partnerships, I've been told this is the right form - maybe because we have children..? I do not know, but I am asking a lawyer to review everything before I take to mediation. And you're right about how to answer questions 9 & 10, thanks again.

Thanks too for the guidance on valuations and CSA.
________________

On your other points:

1) Absolutely. I guess this is where the haggling will be...
But, I can prove I've consistently paid the interest on the mortgage and I have receipts for all major repairs and maintenance over the years.

2) I think her argument will be: he moved out then, only paid maintenance. And, this is where I'm seeking help of lawyer as I've always just paid the mortgage interest by Standing order direct to her bank account - but, I have paid it consistently. She'll say she (theoretically took over sole repayment on that date.) She'll do this as the house may have been worth £200k less last year.

Thanks for your generous and detailed reply. :T

Hard_food_for_midas

FBaby wrote: »

Your situation is very complicated and I think you will find that individuals, as much as professionals will have very different views as to what is a fair share.

When you say you are paying the mortgage, are you saying that you are paying the full mortgage (and she is paying nothing) or your share? Is this still interest only? And how is this paid? Directly to the mortgage company or to her and it is you saying that it is for the mortgage?

If the latter, you are not in a good position as indeed, unless it is made clear in writing, she can say that this is only maintenance (even if you pay more than what csa say you should because that amount is the minimum you should pay, you could pay more than this and many fathers do), and therefore you are paying nothing towards the mortgage. In this instance, she could justify that indeed, the share of the equity should be considered at the time you left and stopped paying the mortgage.

The first question to ask is whether she agrees that everything should be separated 50/50, because from what you say, and her claiming that what's in her name is hers and vice versa, it is not the case. Therefore are you prepared to consider taking less than 50% of the assets and if so, how low will you go? If you agree a percentage, you can there work backwards as you what you get and what she gets that accounts to that percentage.

If you won't agree on the percentage share, I am not too sure how you can move forward without going through the legal route and that will be quite a minefield!

I have consistently paid m'gage, interest only, to her bank a/c over all the years. She'd have to be really mean not to acknowledge this, but I understand it may happen and the proof is in the paperwork. The amount remained constant even after we split.

TBH I'm thinking we need to protect what WE built over all those years for all of US. Protect it from any 3rd party interference down the line. We need to agree on what happens if one of us dies and is left to bring up kids on their own. Is it really worth shelling out money to lawyers, reducing family pot, because people can't be fair? I'm half-joking, but full serious here. People cannot agree and that's why we both are seeking independent counsel as well as mediation - neither of us are so naive - disputes make the world go around after all!

Hard_food_for_midas

Annisele wrote: »

That surprises me. It sounds like having the children makes it much more difficult for her to take a job that includes travelling, or that has unpredictable hours. (She might not actually want such a job - but it doesn't look like she's even in a position to consider one).

Plus, the fact you say her career isn't currently hampered by children suggests that that hasn't always been true. Purely from a fairness perspective (and not at all from a legal one) - does that mean your pension pot is bigger than hers? If you were getting divorced, both of your pensions would be taken into account in the settlement. The pension sharing rules don't apply to cohabiting couples, but she might feel that taking more of the equity is a fair exchange for having less of a pension pot.

Our pension pot as such were the properties we built and shared together. Her knew career (which she is overjoyed with) keeps her at home and she's happy with that.

Hard_food_for_midas

WillowCat wrote: »

As you were never married (nor in a civil partnership I assume!) you cannot issue a home rights notice.

Your ex partner is correct that what is in her name is hers, and what is in your name is yours, however you may have built up a beneficial interest in her property which is not reflected in the legal title.

If you cannot come to an agreement, with or without mediation, the only option available is court - under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (ToLATA). You must take legal advice before embarking on this route as it is typically very costly, and the loser will pay the winners costs (unlike matrimonial law where it is normal for each to pay their own).

There is some information here that may be of use:

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/recurring-misconceptions-in-tolata-cases#.VxZeMFQrLIU

Scary reading! Let's try and avoid this! But, I am seeking additional advice from a lawyer on this point.

As I've said to Princeofpounds above Mediation advised filling in form HR1 and Land Registry said that it was the relevant document, but I hear you and I will ask my lawyer about that.

itsanne

Hard_food_for_midas wrote: »

Ideally, I would like to take everything that we built together over those 17 years and split it all in half – obviously, this would not include all the money I paid for all the goods in the house (or her credit cards etc,) just half of the equity, as what’s in her name is double what I have in mine. This seems fair. So she would have half the equity of your flat too?

We bought a house in my partner's name back in 2004. She used the sale of her flat to pay down a large deposit. I put in £15K, but I have always paid the mortgage (interest only), all maintenance costs, most (if not all) of furniture and gadgets etc. These payments have more than surpassed all the deposit she initially put in. If you're only paying the interest, what about the rest?

When we bought the house, I was able to let out the flat we used to live in and I had a buy-to-let flat nearby too. Year later, I also bought a flat miles away so we could work on it as a DIY project and we wanted to try living in another city. This lasted 6 months and we let it out. All 3 flats were in my name, so we put the house in hers.

Over the years, I have sold off 2 of the flats and paid off the mortgage on the last one. - The one I’m currently living in. I now have no money left from the other flats. But you have a flat you own outright. Does your ex have money not tied up in the house?

I also get sent a bill every month to pay half of the girl’s activities expenses, which is fair enough.


1) She thinks what’s in her name is hers and what’s in my name is mine. But,
the equity in the house is double what I have in the flat. So, I will be registering my interest in the property (see below)

2) Since moving out, I have continued to pay the mortgage. (The lawyer I went to recommended I do this until we have an agreement.) My ex says that is not me paying the mortgage, it is child maintenance. Other than half your daughter's activities, do you pay anything other than the mortgage?

It's refreshing to find someone splitting up and trying to be fair.

If you aren't paying anything other than the mortgage interest and half of your daughter's activities, then isn't your ex right that what you see as the mortgage is actually maintenance? Otherwise where is the maintenance you need to pay for two children?

If only the mortgage interest is being paid, how will the mortgage be paid off when the time comes? Who is funding that?

I'm bearing in mind that you have said you want fairness and am therefore wondering if things can be viewed in a different way. You have had three flats which have resulted in you owning one outright while your ex has a house with a presumably lengthy mortgage remaining. If you had retained all three flats, and therefore a mortgage, how would the values of three flats versus the house have compared? If you used the proceeds from the flat you now own as a deposit on a house similar to the one your ex has, how would the mortgage for that compare to hers? It might be that because your flat is mortgage free and her house is mortgaged the financial state you are each left in is more similar than you think.

Hard_food_for_midas

itsanne wrote: »

It's refreshing to find someone splitting up and trying to be fair.

If you aren't paying anything other than the mortgage interest and half of your daughter's activities, then isn't your ex right that what you see as the mortgage is actually maintenance? Otherwise where is the maintenance you need to pay for two children?

If only the mortgage interest is being paid, how will the mortgage be paid off when the time comes? Who is funding that?

I'm bearing in mind that you have said you want fairness and am therefore wondering if things can be viewed in a different way. You have had three flats which have resulted in you owning one outright while your ex has a house with a presumably lengthy mortgage remaining. If you had retained all three flats, and therefore a mortgage, how would the values of three flats versus the house have compared? If you used the proceeds from the flat you now own as a deposit on a house similar to the one your ex has, how would the mortgage for that compare to hers? It might be that because your flat is mortgage free and her house is mortgaged the financial state you are each left in is more similar than you think.

These are fair points, however, they are academic aren't they?
It is through the disposal of the flats that the family home appreciated so much - most money (after tax) was paid into the house and the occasional family holiday.

The properties were to be both our pensions as we both are freelance. If I walk away based on the historical fact that the properties may have had similar amounts of equity at some point (and TBH I'm not sure they ever did - maybe if I had them all now, but I don't.)

It still doesn't get away from the fact that the equity in one is double that in the family home, does it?

itsanne

Hard_food_for_midas wrote: »

These are fair points, however, they are academic aren't they?
It is through the disposal of the flats that the family home appreciated so much - most money (after tax) was paid into the house and the occasional family holiday.

The properties were to be both our pensions as we both are freelance. If I walk away based on the historical fact that the properties may have had similar amounts of equity at some point (and TBH I'm not sure they ever did - maybe if I had them all now, but I don't.)

It still doesn't get away from the fact that the equity in one is double that in the family home, does it?

Is it though? If the flat is paid for and the house isn't, you're not comparing like with like. With random figures, if the house would sell for £400,000 but there is a mortgage for £250,000 on it, selling the house wouldn't give anyone £400,000, just £150,000 (as so far only the interest appears to be being paid). That's the figure which would be relevant in comparison with the flat.

Hard_food_for_midas

itsanne wrote: »

Is it though? If the flat is paid for and the house isn't, you're not comparing like with like. With random figures, if the house would sell for £400,000 but there is a mortgage for £250,000 on it, selling the house wouldn't give anyone £400,000, just £150,000 (as so far only the interest appears to be being paid). That's the figure which would be relevant in comparison with the flat.

I've taken that into account. She has double the equity I have and each year the house goes up (if they go up) it generates 6 x the flat value. Remember: at the moment - I continue to pay the interest on the house - though this is the main argument...

PS The flat (though mortgage free) is crap compared to the house - there are issues galore and it's leasehold and to sell, I'd have to fork out about £15K at least to get the lease up...

FBaby

I've taken that into account. She has double the equity I have and each year the house goes up (if they go up) it generates 6 x the flat value. Remember: at the moment - I continue to pay the interest on the house - though this is the main argument...

I think you really need to clarify this, with yourself and her. If that is the case that you are paying the mortgage and the reason why you feel you do have an entitlement to the equity since you left, what is your argument for not paying child maintenance? You can't have it both way, either you pay both and then can claim you are entitled to all or an element of the equity since you left, or you need to accept that what you are paying really in maintenance, even if it is the same amount than what you have always transferred to her for the mortgage.

Have you made any proposals at all?