Ex husband wants to release equity from house...

ClaireE

When we went through mediation to help divide our property etc my ex husband was then employed. I was in no position to buy him out so he remained joint owner & therefore responsible for still paying half the mortgage.

Keep_pedalling

Gavin83 wrote: »

I'm really surprised that the divorce court ordered that he was still responsible for paying the mortgage on your house. He must have had a terrible

The court also ordered that when sold he will get 50% of the proceeds, so yes he should be paying his share of the mortgage.

Now that his financial situation has changed dramatically something needs to change.

Gavin83

ClaireE wrote: »

When we went through mediation to help divide our property etc my ex husband was then employed. I was in no position to buy him out so he remained joint owner & therefore responsible for still paying half the mortgage.

If you weren't in a position to buy him out I would have expected a court to order the property be sold. It's not often they'd expect a person to maintain two properties for what is a considerable length of time.

The reasons why this is done is largely irrelevant now though so I won't mention it again.

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

The court also ordered that when sold he will get 50% of the proceeds, so yes he should be paying his share of the mortgage.

Now that his financial situation has changed dramatically something needs to change.

As above. If she was to remain in the property I'd have expected he'd have got 50% of the equity (once sold) at the time of the separation, with any future equity build up going to the OP. I suspect given the change in the financial situation this will be the outcome. He obviously won't be expected to pay money he doesn't have.

OP, there is something else to consider here. How much debt is your ex husband in? If it's significant and it leads to court appearances or ultimately bankruptcy that could cause a whole world of pain for you, given that you live in a house he owns 50% of.

There's a lot to consider here but given that you're still financially tied to your ex husband via the house his debt is also a major problem for you. Ultimately you aren't responsible for his debt but they won't just ignore his share of the property.

Hectors_House

Gavin83 wrote: »

If you weren't in a position to buy him out I would have expected a court to order the property be sold. It's not often they'd expect a person to maintain two properties for what is a considerable length of time.

The reasons why this is done is largely irrelevant now though so I won't mention it again.



A court wouldn’t rule that the property be sold during divorce proceedings because there are children.

They will do whatever means the least disruption to the children so keeping them in their school etc.

Gavin83

Hectors_House wrote: »

A court wouldn’t rule that the property be sold during divorce proceedings because there are children.

They will do whatever means the least disruption to the children so keeping them in their school etc.

They wouldn't often expect an individual to be maintaining two properties for a long period of time and pay maintenance, it's unrealistic, unless the individual earns a substantial amount. It limits the non resident parents ability to purchase another property.

Also it keeps the ex partners financially tied for that period and it could create serious problems in the future, as this topic has clearly demonstrated.

Working_Mum

I had an ex-husband who didn't pay me for over 2 years - in the end he gave me the equity he owned in the previous) marital home (which I lived in with my children). I was already paying the mortgage, insurances etc and we exchanged letters - his said in lieue of £x owed to me he would relinquich his share of the equity when the property was sold and would co-operate with the solicitors etc during the sale.

My letter advised him I was accepting the equity in lieu of the £x he owed me (for missed child payments etc), I promised to keep paying the mortgage and not expect him to contribute to the mortgage/upkeep/insurances etc.

I have continued to pay the mortgage and it is still in joint names (as I am self employed and we split up at the time of the crash so I couldn't get a mortgage in my name).

We didn't involved solicitors but I was guided by a solicitor friend of mine as what to write etc.

My ex-husband has kept this arrangement safely away from his new wife but I have kept my children in their home and myself off the streets.

Good luck, I hope you get somehting sorted.

ClaireE

But he doesn't maintain two properties. Where did I say that?

sarahevie1

ClaireE wrote: »

But he doesn't maintain two properties. Where did I say that?

I appreciate that you have said he has a moored boat, but when giving a court order the expectation is that both parties will maintain their own property. Therefore it is very unusual for an ex to be expected to have to pay half a mortgage on a house they don't live in.

It is more usual for one party to buy them out, or sell the house and split the equity, or keep the house and mortgage, but the person living in it pays the mortgage.

Personally I think that you need to go back to court, as you need to cut all ties sooner rather than later. You could lose the house if he isn't paying the mortgage and you can't either. Perhaps if he has missed payments you may be entitled to more of the 50:50 split. If he's out of work he is unlikely to owe you much child support, so this amount probably needs amending.

When I split with my ex I wanted a final settlement so I bought him out of the family home, the equity enabled him the deposit to buy another house. I got a mortgage for the family home in my name only and he pays child support.