Separating- can husband walk in house whenever he likes?

justme111

Well , we must agree to disagree than on what is relevant as you seem to have your own book rule on it.

rpc

justme111 wrote: »

Her having an option of selling or moving out is irrelevant. If she stays there by either agreement or court order she has the right to not have unwanted presence with no notice and no reason at her home.

And it sounds as if the problem is that there is neither agreement nor court order, in which case both of them have equal rights of access.

Guest101

justme111 wrote: »

Indeed. But if he moves out as the conversation implies it will it will stop being his home. - I didn't say 'home', I said 'property' By the sound of it he knows all too well if push comes to shove (court action) it will be she who stays there. - whilst that is possible, it's not a sure fire thing We all know that , you know that, he knows that. So in his frustration he tries to exercise power he thinks he got - right of entry.

There is no right to exclude him, even via the courts, unless there is violence or significant risk of harm.


The court can decide it perfectly reasonable that they share the home, even if not as a couple.


- if anything I think you are showing your frustration by making up things a court might do.


A court does not exclude someone from their property for no reason (and breaking up is 'no reason')

Guest101

justme111 wrote: »

Well , we must agree to disagree than on what is relevant as you seem to have your own book rule on it.

I cant see the relevance of discussing things which are non existent....

Marvel1

Person_one wrote: »

If he's agreed to move out he should move out, fully. Presumably she's staying there because its the childrens' home and she's their main carer, that's the usual reason. She's also going to be paying all the mortgage on her own remember.

Its a power trip for the reasons I stated in my post where I said it was a power trip. If he needs access for a real reason, there's nothing to stop him arranging that with her in a civilised way. Holding over her head the threat that he may just stroll in unannounced at any time of day or night is unfair and vindictive.

Is still his asset, but it won't be his home, and he should respect that.

Do you think it's best for her to sell up and have your own home? Or move out and rent? To avoid the risk of unannounced guests.

Jagraf

It's his house too - so why on earth are you paying the mortgage on your own?

clearingout

Guest101 wrote: »

A LL owns a property, but gives up his rights to access in return for rent, its completely different.

Whilst I accept it is not a landlord/rentee situation, the principle isn't any different. When one half of a couple moves out, it is generally expected that he/she stops paying rent/mortgage on the family home as they now have to pay rent/mortgage on their own home. It is also not unreasonable that people are able to live in peace, without constant fear of someone walking in and doing whatever it is they like in what is your personal space. It is fine to call and say 'I would like to collect X and could I do it at 6pm?' and then turn up at 6pm and collect X. It is not fine to turn up at 2am, turn on all the lights, turn on the TV and say 'tough, I'm on the deeds so I can do what I want'.

If he wants to do that, then surely it would be reasonable that he gives his ex a key to his new place and she is able to turn up there as and when she chooses?

clearingout

Guest101 wrote: »

No I didn't miss that at all.


that is perfectly acceptable, it's his property.


If she wants privacy she is welcome to move out and get her own place (either rent or buy).


I'd say it's just as unreasonable to demand that he leaves and gives her full control. - They both have EQUAL rights.

No, it is their property. And yes, they have equal rights. But those equal rights can't be exercised in quite the same way when a couple separate as when they are together. Coming and going as you please when you are no longer actually resident at the property isn't considered acceptable, it can be intimidating and it is widely accepted as controlling.

As for privacy - he gets privacy by moving out but his ex isn't entitled to the same?

Guest101

clearingout wrote: »

Whilst I accept it is not a landlord/rentee situation, the principle isn't any different. When one half of a couple moves out, it is generally expected that he/she stops paying rent/mortgage on the family home as they now have to pay rent/mortgage on their own home. It is also not unreasonable that people are able to live in peace, without constant fear of someone walking in and doing whatever it is they like in what is your personal space. It is fine to call and say 'I would like to collect X and could I do it at 6pm?' and then turn up at 6pm and collect X. It is not fine to turn up at 2am, turn on all the lights, turn on the TV and say 'tough, I'm on the deeds so I can do what I want'.

If he wants to do that, then surely it would be reasonable that he gives his ex a key to his new place and she is able to turn up there as and when she chooses?

Not quite.

It would be similar if:

She paid the full mortgage

AND

He continued to gain an interest in the property.

His rights given up in return to added equity. Otherwise it's not the same at all.

onomatopoeia99

clearingout wrote: »

As for privacy - he gets privacy by moving out but his ex isn't entitled to the same?

She is entitled to get privacy by moving out, which would be exactly the same.