New Bloke living in Family home.

Ergates

z1a wrote: »

No .

Then why did you emphasise "MAN" in your post?

TripleH

I don't think it is what the Op wants to hear, but I suspect that his family home is his no longer. Whether it be that he has to sell it and split the proceeds with his former partner or she takes it on herself (somehow).

Whilst it is a bitter pill to swallow and whilst you no doubt will have lots of happy memories growing up in it, remember the most recent memories of the house will not be as nice and with time that can soil the good thoughts you have.

Better you wipe the slate clean, make a tidy legal clean break going forward. Your Ex cannot have everything her way (ie remain in that house and expect you to support her new life). Better you both move on for the benefit of your children.

efes_shareholder

move back in and tell her you will be the legal gaurdian for your children allowing them to stay and she can go and seek housing for new child and her partner

I know this isn't the pratical solution but in an ideal world.................

duchy

If you added her name to the deeds then it isn't your house but owned by both of you.......regardless of whether you did or not ,as you are married its joint marital property and is part of equitable division of assets.
She could also remain and the house not be sold until the youngest child is eighteen.
Presumably you have a solicitor who has told you all this already.

maman

duchy wrote: »

If you added her name to the deeds then it isn't your house but owned by both of you.......regardless of whether you did or not ,as you are married its joint marital property and is part of equitable division of assets.
She could also remain and the house not be sold until the youngest child is eighteen.
Presumably you have a solicitor who has told you all this already.

I have a friend who's been in this position. He hung in there until his child was 18. If having the family home back means that much then you might have to do that unless you can persuade ex to make other arrangements.

Pollycat

duchy wrote: »

If you added her name to the deeds then it isn't your house but owned by both of you.......regardless of whether you did or not ,as you are married its joint marital property and is part of equitable division of assets.
She could also remain and the house not be sold until the youngest child is eighteen.
Presumably you have a solicitor who has told you all this already.

I don't believe the bib to be true.
My friend, who's husband left her for someone else, had 2 children - the eldest was 12.
Her solicitor said that she could be forced to sell the house.
And that is what happened.
What proof do you have for your statement?

maman

Pollycat wrote: »

I don't believe the bib to be true.
My friend, who's husband left her for someone else, had 2 children - the eldest was 12.
Her solicitor said that she could be forced to sell the house.
And that is what happened.
What proof do you have for your statement?

I wonder if it depends on the financial circumstances of the people involved. In the case I know of the person involved was well able to continue paying the mortgage on his former home and he had somewhere else to live so he just waited until his child was 18 and then 'reclaimed' his former home paying out his ex for her financial share which wasn't huge as he'd paid the mortgage for years so the home was a sort of investment in the property .

This has similarities to where OP is now. His ex is staying put while the children are young.

Presumably if OP (or in the situation you know) if the parties couldn't afford to keep paying the mortgage then then they could be forced to sell, share any equity and then (while the NRP would have to pay maintenance) make other arrangements for accommodation.

Pollycat

maman wrote: »

I wonder if it depends on the financial circumstances of the people involved. In the case I know of the person involved was well able to continue paying the mortgage on his former home and he had somewhere else to live so he just waited until his child was 18 and then 'reclaimed' his former home paying out his ex for her financial share which wasn't huge as he'd paid the mortgage for years so the home was a sort of investment in the property .

This has similarities to where OP is now. His ex is staying put while the children are young.

Presumably if OP (or in the situation you know) if the parties couldn't afford to keep paying the mortgage then then they could be forced to sell, share any equity and then (while the NRP would have to pay maintenance) make other arrangements for accommodation.

My friend was paying the mortgage - on her own.
She paid it for more than 2 years after he left.

It didn't make any difference.
Her ex forced her to sell because he wanted his share out of the house.
She couldn't afford to buy him out.


I believe this "you can stay in the house until the youngest child is 18" idea that probably used to apply doesn't anymore.
Years ago, things definitely leaned towards the woman but I think things have swung the other way to some extent.

maman

Yes, you're right it's not as simple as automatically staying in the home until the youngest is 18.

maman wrote: »

Presumably if OP (or in the situation you know) if the parties couldn't afford to keep paying the mortgage then then they could be forced to sell, share any equity and then (while the NRP would have to pay maintenance) make other arrangements for accommodation.

So it's not just about affording the mortgage but being able to buy out the other party too. I suppose that's increasingly common as the departing partner would need to find other accommodation.

Pollycat

maman wrote: »

Yes, you're right it's not as simple as automatically staying in the home until the youngest is 18.



So it's not just about affording the mortgage but being able to buy out the other party too. I suppose that's increasingly common as the departing partner would need to find other accommodation.

When I went to CAB with my friend, I specifically asked the question "Can he force her to sell the house?".
The answer we got was "probably, yes".

When we went to see her solicitor, I specifically asked the question "Can he force her to sell the house?".The answer we got was "yes, he can".

Her other friends were telling her she could stay in the house until the youngest was 18.
She hung on and on, paying the mortgage.
In the end, he forced her to sell the house.
She'd paid almost 3 years off the mortgage which was not taken into account when the financial split was calculated.
She would have been better off putting the house up for sale straight away, buying a smaller house and paying the mortgage on her new house.

Unfortunately, she wasn't ready to listen. she only wanted to hear what she wanted to hear.

That's why I asked Duchy what proof he/she had for this statement:

duchy wrote: »

She could also remain and the house not be sold until the youngest child is eighteen.