Ex using savings to move out

Looking for advise please!
A friend is splitting from partner, they have kids together but are not married. She needs him to pay part of mortgage so she can keep living in their home with the kids and she's considering loaning him her savings to move out.

How can she ensure, legally, that she gets her savings back? Paying back monthly is not really an option as she needs him to pay part of the mortgage. 

Thank you. 

Comments

  • MattMattMattUK
    MattMattMattUK Posts: 8,249
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    Kateyy said:
    Looking for advise please!
    A friend is splitting from partner, they have kids together but are not married. She needs him to pay part of mortgage so she can keep living in their home with the kids and she's considering loaning him her savings to move out.

    How can she ensure, legally, that she gets her savings back? Paying back monthly is not really an option as she needs him to pay part of the mortgage. 

    Thank you. 
    Are they married, or just partners? Who is on the mortgage and deeds? Is he actually prepared to pay part of the mortgage, or would they be better off selling the property and buying a smaller home which she can afford. 
  • gm0
    gm0 Posts: 799
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    Fact free a terrible plan.  Many risks.  Partner takes money.  Fighting then breaks out on other topics as they come up one by one.  But has money.  Doesn't pay back.  Doesn't pay mortgage.  Or child support.  Now have no savings (lent). Mortgage arrears begin.  A loan agreement letter makes little difference short term - especially if they have not got it.  A charge against their stake in the house - is expensive to arrange and not worth costs for a small amount.

    Perhaps ex partner  now finds somewhere else to live (using this money for a lumpy rental deposit).  Maybe they had to lie to get the tenancy - by not disclosing the mortgage.  And now their net of new housing expenses income is insufficient. To pay the rent, the ct, energy at the new place and the mortgage contribution, child support and the new loan at the old.  Who to pay. And who to ignore - this month.  It doesn't even require the ex to be particularly unreasonable for it not to add up with or without the loan.  That may just be the income level and the local housing market.  Solo living at that income level is between hard and impossible outside lodging / HMO room. And if the goal is two living units - commutable to workplaces and suitable for kids access and stopovers.  The rental cost of a suitable for that one bed / two bed will be X and it may just be too much

    An HMO / lodging bedroom - with no prospect of a way out long term - doesn't meet the spec around access for the kids either. Yet is more affordable - in conjunction with the existing house.  Yet few people are willing to return indefinitely to that mode of life having moved on from it.  A smaller less well located sole tenancy is more sustainable and a fairer solution.  Fairer because it meets access/visitation needs for the kids better (or indeed at all).

    As a practical matter - the location of *both* units may have to vary to achieve something sustainable that can work for everybody.

    The ex should do X,Y,Z butters no parsnips - if they cannot do it without living in a box by the canal

    There are lots of shoulds

    The departing parent should pay child support
    The departing parent should have somewhere to live of a minimm size which is suitable for the children to visit
    The departing parent with a stake in the house should contribute a share to maintenance as it comes up
    The resident parent - with kids settled - should stay if possible in the existing broad area with the kids/schools etc.

    This may mean staying in the existing house.  And it may not.  Due to affordability.  It may have to be less desirable - but nearby.  Or smaller but still suitable for family size.

    Some people fight through this stuff - married or not prior - to the relevant rule set - issue by issue - and for years. 
    And they burn their financial situations to the ground over it. Once winning (via the other person losing or just suffering) becomes an emotional locked in goal.  Six figure sums are wasted on lawyers.  Debts grow. Happens all the time.  This is not better.  Lawyers win. Parents lose.  Most importantly kids are damaged by the negative parenting example

    And other people do the sums. In their locality - sometimes they sell the house, move down market in area - from one bigger to two smaller less well located places or rentals, and balance the overall books ongoing. 

    Nothing is as big or as nice as desired but the total outgoings now match the total incomes. A more sustainable separation (for everybody).  Access/visitation commitments are made and reliably kept. etc.  Kids see adults behaving - reasonably.   There is no version of this which is ideal for the kids.  Yet the reduced conflict version is better on many levels. If both the adults are up to it.  And financially realistic about what they can have vs what they prefer to have.

    Both have to be up for it. Suggest counsel not doing anything rash.  The loan. Or anything else. 
  • elsien
    elsien Posts: 32,278
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    edited 17 January at 8:12PM
    Whose name are the house and mortgage in - one of them or joint, and was there any agreement set up with regards to deposit, equity et cetera when they bought?

    The partner will have to pay child maintenance, depending on the proportion of time that the children are with each parent.

    But expecting them to continue paying the mortgage for an indefinite length of time, when they will have to rent, or buy a place for themselves, presumably big enough for the children to stay at as well, isn’t realistic.
    They will need to financially separate at some point, and generally speaking the sooner the better.
    Can she not afford to buy him out, because if not then selling up and downsizing or renting is probably the way they will have to go.
    All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.

    Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.
  • Exodi
    Exodi Posts: 2,782
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 18 January at 3:06PM
    gm0 said:
    Some people fight through this stuff - married or not prior - to the relevant rule set - issue by issue - and for years. 
    And they burn their financial situations to the ground over it. Once winning (via the other person losing or just suffering) becomes an emotional locked in goal.  Six figure sums are wasted on lawyers.  Debts grow. Happens all the time.  This is not better.  Lawyers win. Parents lose.  Most importantly kids are damaged by the negative parenting example
    This is sage advice. I quoted a small part of it but all of it is very insightful.

    It is inevitable that two people running two properties will cost more than two people running one property. Many people expect to have the same standard of living after a break up, despite their costs being exponentially higher.
    elsien said:
    The partner will have to pay child maintenance, depending on the proportion of time that the children are with each parent.

    But expecting them to continue paying the mortgage for an indefinite length of time, when they will have to rent, or buy a place for themselves, presumably big enough for the children to stay at as well, isn’t realistic.
    They will need to financially separate at some point, and generally speaking the sooner the better.
    Can she not afford to buy him out, because if not then selling up and downsizing or renting is probably the way they will have to go.
    I agree with this also.

    I think it's unrealistic to ask him to move out at his cost, expect him to pay rent on whatever shack he can afford on his own, on top of paying child maintenance, part of the living costs of your friend, as well as property maintenance obligations (and I can only imagine his reaction to being asked to pay for the boiler service in a house he doesn't live). He'll also be forced to stay on the mortgage, effectively hamstringing his ability to own a different house potentially for decades.
    Kateyy said:
    A friend is splitting from partner, they have kids together but are not married. She needs him to pay part of mortgage so she can keep living in their home with the kids and she's considering loaning him her savings to move out.

    How can she ensure, legally, that she gets her savings back? Paying back monthly is not really an option as she needs him to pay part of the mortgage. 
    I think you're putting the cart before the horse on this. I'd go back to the start and ask why he should move out?

    Do you know if he's willing to? You can't force him to move out of his own house. I'd suggest your friend is the one with unrealistic expectations.
    Know what you don't
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.5K Life & Family
  • 246.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards