Mesher order

LunaLater

Kelly_H said:

I am affording the house and the bills on my own, so I don't need a partner to move in to pay the bills. But I do want to live with my new partner not for financial reasons, but because we are in love and want to be a family. I don't understand how that's wrong at all. 

Nothing wrong with that, but why should your ex pay for you and your boyfriend’s life together?

RAS

Random thoughts?

Have you looked at going to an interest only mortgage?

You'd need to check if BF can afford to "pay" half the mortgage, as he does not have the right to do what he wants with his income. 

Also, you say you are paying half the mortgage? Have you worked out what the impact of BF moving in would be on your benefits?


There are two ways to acquire equity on a property.

One is by being included on the deeds. You can then define how you want to share the property, including a deed of trust if needs be.

The other is by making payments towards the property, even if you are not on the deeds. This might be by financial contribution or sweat equity.

So if BF built an extension that increased the value, he'd be entitled to demand that you pay him for that increase in value when you split up, even if he's not on the deeds.

Likewise if he were allowed by his Insolvency Practitioner to replace your ex's financial contribution, BF would acquire a Beneficial Interest (Google it).

The problem is that BF has already agreed that if he has a Beneficial Interest in a property, he will pay that money to the Insolvency Practitioner/his creditors in year 5 of his IVA.

So if ex is entitled to say 40% of £100k, at some point, you will have to give him that money, by re-mortgaging or selling.

And if  BF pays half the mortgage and the property increases in value by another £30k, you will have to find another 50% of 85% (£12750) of the increase to pay off the Insolvency Practitioner on year 5. That's almost border line but individual IPs will be more or less strict about demanding this payment.

As said, you are the owner and can refuse to buy the Beneficial Interest/Remortgage but that would increase the number of years that your BF has to pay into the IVA.

You'd be better learning more about the implication of moving in and BF paying money to replace your ex's contribution before you go further. There may be a sweet spot in a few years where his contribution to the property wouldn't be enough to trigger a payment of BI and the IVA would complete on the expected schedule.

gettingtheresometime

I must admit I was worried about coming across as uncharitable as your OP did come across as only being concerned about continuing the relationship because of the financial benefits it could bring.

To be honest, I think you're potentially opening up a can of worms...let's just say you moved your boyfriend in, he started paying half the mortgage. That means he then has a financial interest in the house. 

What happens in the event that you split up? You could end up with a smaller percentage of the house by the time the house is sold. 

Personally I think you'd be wise to hang fire on moving him in, regardless of what could or couldn't be arranged.

cr1mson

For both financial and emotional reasons I would suggest separating out the divorce and the new boyfriend.

So get the divorce all sorted before looking to move new bf in.

Not sure of timelines here but not sure why there is a big rush to cohabit and have a child together especially as you have existing children to consider. How do they feel about all this?

Have you and your children had the opportunity to receive counselling to deal with impact of DV? Just concerned that rush is a quite understandable desire to distance yourself from the DV but that if not fully dealt with will fester as well as impacting any decisions you make leading to long term negative consequences for you and your children.

tightauldgit

Kelly_H said:

elsien said:

Kelly_H said:

I thought that he has an obligation to house the children, until the youngest turns 18.

That’s quite a common misconception, that people have the right to stay in the house until the youngest child is 18.
Any settlement has to be fair to both of you. He may be living with his girlfriend now but if that relationship breaks down he still needs to be able to house himself. 

And technically, he could house the children by having them go to live with him. Even if there was an obligation to keep them housed, it wouldn’t necessarily be in the house you are in now. 

Expecting him to keep paying half the mortgage on the house for X number of years while you raise a family there with a new partner really isn’t particularly realistic.

Did you and the solicitor discuss any other assets that there might be such a savings, pension et cetera?

To say the children coukd live with him is extremely hurtful. He was abusive towards me. He told me he didn't want the responsibility of the children anymore. He is also an alcoholic. My children are better with me and will never be housed with him. 
As I keep saying, if a new partner moves in with me, I do not expect my ex to keep paying half of the mortgage. The mortgage would be covered by myself and my new partner. I'm saying because my new partner couldn't go onto my mortgage because of his IVA, could my ex stay on the mortgage until the IVA is off his credit report. I'm also saying that my solicitor saud he should pay half of the mortgage while I'm here alone with our children and he is in fact also saying that he will do that. 
I don't have savings. He had them and has blown them on three hidays and a new car since we have separated. My solicitor says that is depravation of joint marital assets. I don't have a pension. I've always been home caring for our children. He has one and my solicitor says I'm entitled to 50%, yet he wants to give me 20%

One of two things is happening here - either a) your solicitor is telling you what you want to hear or b) your solicitor is telling you the facts but you are only hearing what you want to hear. (Or possibly c your solicitor isn't competent in family law)

Can your ex force you to leave the marital home? Well he owns half of it so that has to be dealt with in a fair manner. It's entirely possible that means you have to sell the house and split the equity. You do not necessarily have the right to stay there in perpetuity just because you want to.

Oh and furthermore your ex can simply stop making payments on the mortgage at any time. They do not have an obligation to pay half if they aren't living there anymore. They will still be ultimately liable for the mortgage but absent a court order you can't force them to make payments, so the house could be repossessed if you can't make the full mortgage payment yourself. 

Going on holiday is not deprivation of marital assets. My ex tried this nonsense too. The bar for deprivation of assets is very high. Even buying a new car is not necessarily deprivation of assets - though you should remain entitled to half of it's market value in any case. 

elsien

From a strictly legal point of you, you don’t need to buy somewhere to live. Not being able to buy somewhere doesn’t mean you can’t rent. Unsettling the children is not a good enough reason, if the judge feels any agreement is not fair to the both of you. When people split up it’s not unusual for children to have to move or change schools or whatever. Of course it’s not ideal but generally speaking they cope. 

I’m not saying that’s what should or shouldn’t happen, I’m really not convinced by your fixed idea that you will get to keep the house if it goes to court.

RAS

Kelly_H said:

RAS said:

Random thoughts?

Have you looked at going to an interest only mortgage?

You'd need to check if BF can afford to "pay" half the mortgage, as he does not have the right to do what he wants with his income. 

Also, you say you are paying half the mortgage? Have you worked out what the impact of BF moving in would be on your benefits?


There are two ways to acquire equity on a property.

One is by being included on the deeds. You can then define how you want to share the property, including a deed of trust if needs be.

The other is by making payments towards the property, even if you are not on the deeds. This might be by financial contribution or sweat equity.

So if BF built an extension that increased the value, he'd be entitled to demand that you pay him for that increase in value when you split up, even if he's not on the deeds.

Likewise if he were allowed by his Insolvency Practitioner to replace your ex's financial contribution, BF would acquire a Beneficial Interest (Google it).

The problem is that BF has already agreed that if he has a Beneficial Interest in a property, he will pay that money to the Insolvency Practitioner/his creditors in year 5 of his IVA.

So if ex is entitled to say 40% of £100k, at some point, you will have to give him that money, by re-mortgaging or selling.

And if  BF pays half the mortgage and the property increases in value by another £30k, you will have to find another 50% of 85% (£12750) of the increase to pay off the Insolvency Practitioner on year 5. That's almost border line but individual IPs will be more or less strict about demanding this payment.

As said, you are the owner and can refuse to buy the Beneficial Interest/Remortgage but that would increase the number of years that your BF has to pay into the IVA.

You'd be better learning more about the implication of moving in and BF paying money to replace your ex's contribution before you go further. There may be a sweet spot in a few years where his contribution to the property wouldn't be enough to trigger a payment of BI and the IVA would complete on the expected schedule.

It all sounds so very complicated........

I don't actually think my boyfriend understands the full implications of the Iva to be honest. 

It is complicated, not least as we are responding to your perception of BF's situation that he doesn't understand.

If he paid for an extension on ex's house, he will already have a Beneficial Interest in the ex's house. Is he on the deeds?

If he pays towards the mortgage on your house, he will develop a Beneficial Interest in your house even if he is not in the deeds.

So he's got two women both of whom may be required to pay money towards his debts, and hasn't bothered to understand it?

Insist he starts by going MSE himself and posting on the Bankruptcy and Insolvency forum.

When he understands it, you may be able to have an informed conversation.

Caz3121

looks like the OP has got answers they didn't want/expect and has deleted all their posts

Kelly_H

You were all wrong. I find everyone on here so blunt and quick to judge. That's why I deleted my posts and I would delete my whole account for this forum if I knew how to.
It's all been sorted now, and you were all incorrect with your information. 

Pollycat

Kelly_H said:

You were all wrong. I find everyone on here so blunt and quick to judge. That's why I deleted my posts and I would delete my whole account for this forum if I knew how to.
It's all been sorted now, and you were all incorrect with your information. 

This information was not wrong:

elsien said:

Kelly_H said:

I thought that he has an obligation to house the children, until the youngest turns 18.

That’s quite a common misconception, that people have the right to stay in the house until the youngest child is 18.

When my friend was going through a divorce, all her friends - except me - were telling her she could stay in the house until her youngest was 18.

Totally wrong. She had to sell to give her ex his share of the equity.

I actually think you had some good replies, even if you didn't appreciate or agree with them.

Glad you got things sorted out.

It's a good forum with lots of knowledgeable people.

But if you do want to delete your account, here's how to (From Forum Rules FAQ):

 

• How do I close my account?

  Simply email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com from the email address you joined the Forum with, explaining you wish to close your Forum account. If you want to close any other MSE accounts, please email datarequest@moneysavingexpert.com.