Has the separation agreement been broken?

skintnutta

My husband and I had a separation agreement drawn up in 2017.
I was buying him out of the house and a figure was negotiated so that he would purchase a 3 bedroom house to give each of our 2 boys their own room.
3 years on and he hasn't done this (lives in a small mortgage free 2 bedroom flat) and I doubt he ever intended to buy a 3 bedroom place.  He earns significantly more than me. 
Our oldest son asked to live with me full time 1 year ago and I agreed (had exams approaching) and it wasn't working with him sharing a room with his younger brother.
I feel that the extra money we negotiated so ex could buy a 3 bedroom house should be returned to me as he hasn't forfilled what he said he would do.
I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on this.
Many thanks

BrassicWoman

did the agreement say what he had to buy? it'd be unusual.

Fosterdog

Presumably as he chose a smaller home to keep himself mortgage free he has had more funds to provide for the children than if he bought the bigger home but had a mortgage to pay. It's not going to harm your kids having to share a bedroom and if you were that concerned you could have let him stay in the family home and you could have got yourself into debt buying another house.

goodwithsaving

Children can survive sharing a room....

If you've separated, you need to let him live his life and he can let you live yours. It isn't any business of yours whether he has a two bedroom flat or three bedroom house, so long as he has a roof under which your children can sleep when they stay with him. I'd highly doubt any agreement to state specifically 'you must buy x size house upon divorce'.

We would all love to say, 'lets separate and both buy decent size houses', but that's not how the world works. Maybe he doesn't want to live beyond his means, surely that's much better for the children than a father who gets into too much debt or spends all money paying off the mortgage which could otherwise go on experiences or securing his future.

JReacher1

I don’t think it is any of your business what your ex husband does with his money!

It seems a slightly odd situation that as part of the divorce settlement you appear to have bought him out of the family home and it was him and your two kids who all left. In my experience when someone keeps the family home it’s because they are keeping the children with them! Still I’m sure there is a good reason for it which is none of my business 😀

skintnutta

Thank you all for your thoughts. 

TBagpuss

No, he doesn't have to pay you back. 
You can't prove what his intentions were, it may be that he did, at the time you were negotiating, intend to buy a three bed roomed house, and then changed his mind, or it may be that, as you say, he never intended to do so, but either way, once you had settled, you were both free to use your share of the assets however you wanted. 
His choice not to buy a larger home may mean that he ended up seeing less of his children, which is his loss.

Generally speaking, if you are looking to change the terms of an agreement you would have to show that there was a significant change which could not have been foreseen (for instance, someone becoming critically ill and unable to work, or potentially, someone winning the lottery), which totally changes the basis on which the agreement was made, or alternatively, that one of you lied about your circumstances and that the lies were significant enough that it would have changes the outcome had your known the truth (e.g. if someone concealed substantial assets, or massively understated their income)