Desperate Help - Can he take my House, my Rights?

FBaby

I could not work any more without accessing childcare and because of kids respective sports activities they would have to sacrifice that if that was the case.

I can't see a judge making any decision about your entitlement to stay in the property on the basis that you can't work more hours therefore able to provide adequate lodging for your children because you don't want them to miss out on a couple of after school activities.

Also, it was a joint agreement for me to put career on hold when his thrived - he earns nearly ten times more than me. I earned way more than him when we started out and in fact had a brilliant career.

Similarly, I don't think you can expect a judge to assume that your ex earnings is directly link to his not having childcare responsibilities (I've advanced my career and now earn a very good salary despite being a single mum of two from the time they were still toddlers), just like you can't say that your career and chance to earn well has been ruined by it. Surely if you've studied for a profession was already ahead in your career, being out of work for 10 years doesn't mean you have no chance whatsoever to get back into it.

I do believe that there is a high chance that, taking all circumstances into account, the fact that you'd been together for 16 years, that you lived together as a family, that you contributed towards the bills and most importantly that you are now paying towards the mortgage (and he is accepting it), you would be entitled to a share of the equity. How much might depend on long he'd owned the house before you moved in together.

However, the chance that a judge would grant you staying there for many years to come might not be as high, depending on the size of the house and whether you really need it, and your earning ability and what you could afford with the equity and your income.

No-one can tell you what your rights are though because there are none that are black and white in your situation. The best you'll get is the advice of a solicitor and even then, I would do my own research of previous court cases and not take what they tell you for gossip, especially if you are looking for cheap legal advice.

rpc

For all the ifs and buts, it is highly unlikely you have any occupation rights (as a result of your decision not to marry).

You very likely do have a beneficial interest in the property and would be due a share of it.

You need to separate the two and deal with them quite separately. You have no obligation to pay the mortgage (unlike ex) so if you find alternative lodgings then you can just leave at will and let ex deal with the lender.

MataNui

You dont have any automatic rights to stay in the house. Basically in black and white 'Its not yours'. You may though have a valid financial interest in the house (I think you probably have a pretty good case for something at least here).

BUT

If you think you will be getting anything without going to court then you are seriously mistaken.

Assuming you did go to court and they judge decided you did have a financial interest in the house it wouldnt be more than 50% at absolute best (you were not married and didnt contribute as much to the mortgage). Then with your 50% you would be in the same position as thousands of other couples every year. You have 3 basic choices:
1. Buy out his 50% and live there with your new partner.
2. Let him buy out your 50% and you find somewhere else.
3. Sell up and split the equity.

Both of you need to agree to do either option 1 or 2 and it sounds like you couldnt possibly afford option 1 anyway.

There is another option though and that would be (because you have kids) you may be able to get the courts to let you stay in the house until the kids are old enough but then you would still have to sell up (unless at that point you could afford to buy out his share).

Either way you are not going to be getting what you want because basically you are neither legally or morally entitled to it. You need a solicitor (and a pretty good one).

clint_S

Guest101 wrote: »

Now you're talking rubbish. It's the first time I've seen it and corrected the person. (or at most a handful of times, and certainly not constantly)


I think you might be confusing me with someone else...

My mistake, there must be a few Guest101 account on this forum then.

Guest101

clint_S wrote: »

My mistake, there must be a few Guest101 account on this forum then.

No Just one, but my posting history is available for you to check if you really want to.


I do know what I have and haven't written, and I don't typically pick up on the term 'residency'. That aside you were being unnecessarily pedantic as it's clear in the context what was being discussed.

justme111

That aside you were being unnecessarily pedantic as it's clear in the context what was being discussed.

So you saying "there is no residency in the uk " just to say later the term is "pvc"(parent with care) was necessary and not pedantic because it was not clear in the context what was discussed.

Guest101

justme111 wrote: »

So you saying "there is no residency in the uk " just to say later the term is "pvc"(parent with care) was necessary and not pedantic because it was not clear in the context what was discussed.

If someone was reading about residency, they would be getting the perspective of a foreign country. So wha they read may not apply.

justme111

Then the same applies to clint's correction of your post - if someone was reading about residency from perspective of foreign country.

Guest101

justme111 wrote: »

Then the same applies to clint's correction of your post - if someone was reading about residency from perspective of foreign country.

Not really, I said 'in the UK'

justme111

So he corrected you and said there is residency term in the UK.
As if someone could be so silly to assume me using term "residency" had to do something with immigration when discussing living arrangements and no hint of any immigration issues in the thread then someone could be silly enough to be misguided by your statement "there is no residency in the uk" and think there is no residency from migration view. Of course none of it could actually happen as it was absolutely obvious to any sentient being what I was referring to but no , you had to find at least something that u could disagree in my post and done it as confrontational as you could while staying civil. So you classing someone as unnecessarily pedantic in response to you being like that in the first place does not make sense.