Ex wants to keep house

jocstoke

Jude57 said:

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical here but my first thought is that he wants 50/50 custody of the children so he won't have to give up the Child Benefit or perhaps not have to pay Child Support. Given the other issues, I'd definitely say OP needs to get legal advice sooner rather than later.

OP, depending on your circumstances, you might qualify for additional support through other benefits. Put your figures through https://www.entitledto.co.uk/ to see how your situation would look after separation. You can try putting figures through based on a mortgage or rental and see what you could claim. 

Thanks, I did put my details in there and I'd qualify for universal credit which would pay approximately 50% of a private rental, which would be invaluable, but I cam only claim this if I get the child benefit as it is due to having two dependants. So frustrating as my ex isn't entitled to anything having the mortgage and his income level, he seems to be holding on to it out of spite as I even said I'd give him half the cash, it's just having it in my name I need to be able to get help. Can't even go on the waiting list for a council property for the same reason. So frustrating.

jocstoke

Thanks all, this has given me a lot of food for thought and I think I'm going to have to get legal advice ASAP. I was hoping we could resolve things amicably but with his response just to asking him to sign over the child benefit makes me suspect it will be a long and drawn out process.

lisyloo

sammyjammy said:

lisyloo said:

2nd home stamp duty is applicable if buying when still married as a married couple can only have one residence between them.
good spot.

I thought this too however there is another red flag in that OP says property is currently in his name only so with the current proposal of him paying her half the equity where is OPs security that the other half would ever get paid?

I assumed there would be a financial split agreed as normally happens on a divorce.
of course getting an unwilling spouse to sell is another matter.
they can sabotage viewings if they wish.

theoretica

There does seem to be an awful lot of 'he wants' in there.  As for what is best for the children, spending half their time in a familiar house, and half their time in a smaller one further away - compared to spending all their time in nice but new to them houses.  I am not convinced the benefit of familiarity would be sufficient for that proposal to actually benefit the children.

Will his work hours really allow true 50:50 care?

kimwp

I agree with theoretica - as long as you approach it the right way with the kids, they will be fine moving to a different house - people move houses all the time for different reasons. It's an exciting opportunity to decorate new bedrooms, explore new neighborhoods.

jocstoke

theoretica said:

There does seem to be an awful lot of 'he wants' in there.  As for what is best for the children, spending half their time in a familiar house, and half their time in a smaller one further away - compared to spending all their time in nice but new to them houses.  I am not convinced the benefit of familiarity would be sufficient for that proposal to actually benefit the children.

Will his work hours really allow true 50:50 care?

Yes the more I think about this the more likely it seems that this will be the best solution, will give me much more financial stability.
He seems to think so about 5050 care, although presume if he ends up going back to the office at some point (currently still wfh 90% of the time) he'll need to arrange after school care for them. 

TBagpuss

it sounds like a very sweet deal for him, but not at all far to you or the children.

If you are going to be splitting the care of the children equally then it would make sense for you each to claim the child benefit for one child, which would enable you to claim UC.
As there is enough equity for both of you to buy a property, if the house is sold, then that is the more appropriate outcome - if he can borrow enough to buy you out in full then so be it, if not, then there's no reason why you should end up being less well housed, and potentially having higher outgoings (because a bigger-than-necessary mortgage) for *years* Also, it's not in the children's best interests for there to be a massive difference in the standard of living they see at each of their parents homes. 

IS 50/50 shard care practical, and is it in the children's best interests? IS he genuinely able to commit to it, for instance in being personally available after school and in holidays, and when the children are ill, or is he expecting you to cover those situations?  Is the proposed split of care one which would enable you to increase your hours to full time or would that only be possible of you start paying for child care , in which case is that cost effective.

I think you need to urgently talk to a solicitor, and also to get it clear in your mind that he is only looking out for himself - he is not looking at what is fair or what is best for the children, so while it's natural that you want things to be amicable, that only works if he is equally willing to be amicable and to look at what id fair to you both.

It's worth bearing in mind that if he earns more than you then the fair split of assets may well be one which gives you more than 50% f the available asset, not one which gives you less.

If he is really concerned about the children, why is he trying force a settlement on you which would mean that they were spending half their time in an inferior property, with a mother under constant financial strain.

At best, his approach is very short sighted , at worst it is actively manipulative. Either way, you need to start to stand up for yourself and for the children.

Why was the house / mortgage only in his name? Why was the child benefit not put back into your name once the mortgage had been obtained? his comments about 'subsidising' your part time lifestyle suggest that he has very little understanding of the work you've been ding caring for the children 

TBagpuss

sammyjammy said:

lisyloo said:

2nd home stamp duty is applicable if buying when still married as a married couple can only have one residence between them.
good spot.

I thought this too however there is another red flag in that OP says property is currently in his name only so with the current proposal of him paying her half the equity where is OPs security that the other half would ever get paid?

IF it were part of a court order hen she would have a legal charge over the property, but I agree that there a lot of huge red flags based on what the OP has said, and she definitely needs to get proper legal advice as a matter of urgency. 

squirrelchops2

I agree with TBagpuss above.

Having worked professionally with regards to best interests for children in private law matters such as yours, there has only been 1 occasion where I have seen a 50/50 shared care arrangement work. This worked because the couple separated amicably and were able to 100% put the needs of the children came first at all times.

The reason I say this is that you have to be able to work together even though you are no longer in a relationship. If little Jonny is at yours and has forgotten his PE kit you need to have that relationship where you can just phone up and get it, no 'it's not my day you sort it out' discussion. Children invariably have 101 parties, after school things, need picking up and dropping off irrespective of whose day it is and therefore being able to work together as parents is absolutely key here.

I feel uneasy in some on the statements you have made that your husband wants things his way and his way only - this does not bode well for putting the children first.

Scorpio33

Hi,

I am now divorced with everything tied up and was in a similar situation to you, apart from I would be your ex.

Just a few things:

If you both agree you get the child benefit, you put a claim in for it. What would happen is that the benefits agency would then phone him to confirm he wants it switched to you. All he has to do is agree on the phone. This is what happened to us as I claimed it - we were both working full time and I did the paperwork. But on seperation we both recognised that she would need it more than more, so she did the forms and it switched to her.

If he can't buy you out of the house, then it needs to be sold. If you can't agree on that, whoever has the kids the majority of the time should stay at the house until the kids leave home (then it would be sold). You have as much of a right to be in the house as he does. The best way is for him to raise funds, but if he can't do that then it needs to be sold. 

One other suggestion I had is that if you want some sort of stability, you both own the house and both stay at the shared owned house when either of you have the house, then you both rent one bed places to yourself which is yours and share the jointly owned home. The kids then stay put. This is an expensive option though, as you would be servicing 3 houses instead of 2.

The biggest thing is to agree who has the kids when and stick to that. The kids didn't ask for this and they have a right to see both parents. Him hurting you or you hurting him only hurts the kids. Try and treat this like a business transaction and take emotion out of the equation.