Options available if you can’t buy your ex out.

silvercar

Julz94 said:

silvercar said:

For balance, the fact that your ex is not working at the moment, can be considered in the same light as your current partner not working at the moment. Most would expect that once your very little one turns 1 it would be time for your current partner to work.  So wind forward 6 months and the picture could be different, on both sides.

Once your new partner is back at work, would you be able to get a joint mortgage enough to buy the ex out? 

I can get a re-mortgage to buy her out, that's not the issue. however only after exemption period as stated by the banks. 

Standard procedure is to get a deed of postponement, if you need to remortgage during the exemption period. Is there a unique reason why you can’t do this?

Julz94

silvercar said:

Julz94 said:

silvercar said:

For balance, the fact that your ex is not working at the moment, can be considered in the same light as your current partner not working at the moment. Most would expect that once your very little one turns 1 it would be time for your current partner to work.  So wind forward 6 months and the picture could be different, on both sides.

Once your new partner is back at work, would you be able to get a joint mortgage enough to buy the ex out? 

I can get a re-mortgage to buy her out, that's not the issue. however only after exemption period as stated by the banks. 

Standard procedure is to get a deed of postponement, if you need to remortgage during the exemption period. Is there a unique reason why you can’t do this?

Deed of postponement is for home improvements- unless I am mistaken and someone might want to correct me

Julz94

However, as a general rule a deed of postponement will only be available where the advance is for an approved purpose under Section 156 of the Housing Act 1985

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/68/section/156

The approved purposes are:-
-To enable a re-mortgage with a different lender, without extra borrowing;
-For leaseholders, to pay for service charges;
-To make an interim or final payment if the customer only owns part of the property; and
-To pay for works to the property

silvercar

Julz94 said:

However, as a general rule a deed of postponement will only be available where the advance is for an approved purpose under zSection 156 of the Housing Act 1985

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/68/section/156

The approved purposes are:-
-To enable a re-mortgage with a different lender, without extra borrowing;
-For leaseholders, to pay for service charges;
-To make an interim or final payment if the customer only owns part of the property; and
-To pay for works to the property

You could enquire, you could also decide to change lender to facilitate this.

VyEu

Julz94 said:

VyEu said:

7 years? Medium length ISH marriage. 50/50 of the FMH, split the cash too, maybe small (less than 5%) deviation in equality to make us for income difference but you're both young and expected to maximise earning capacity. What's your pension provision? 10k not really worth arguing about in most cases.

Ofc above is only general, not specific, advice. You'd need your own solicitor for that. 

Your partner not working is part of your form E. 

50/50 of equity as of today ( or after discount period ) this is our stumbling block. 

What that results in hard cash. 

She wants 60k. I offered 25k. And she can keep everything she has. 

Does it not get taken into consideration she’s not paid nothing towards the mortgage ? 

Does the tenancy being in my sole name prior to sharing my RTB make no difference at all ? 

Surely the courts ain’t that stupid in her becoming unemployed just as courts proceedings have opened. 

The fact she found suitable accommodation when leaving FMH weakens her claim as to housing needs ? 

No her not paying towards the mortgage does not matter. The courts will not generally conduct an accounting exercise.

The tenancy being in your sole name before marriage - not really a reason for departure from equality where it's the former matrimonial home and this appears, unless there are other significant assets lying around, to be a needs case. 

Her unemployment will be usually viewed as being temporary. She will be expected to work.

And just because she's moved out it doesn't weaken her financial claims as to her housing needs. You don't get get a departure from equality in your favour because one party moves out, the matrimonial assets still need to be split.

Jude57

VyEu said:

Julz94 said:

VyEu said:

7 years? Medium length ISH marriage. 50/50 of the FMH, split the cash too, maybe small (less than 5%) deviation in equality to make us for income difference but you're both young and expected to maximise earning capacity. What's your pension provision? 10k not really worth arguing about in most cases.

Ofc above is only general, not specific, advice. You'd need your own solicitor for that. 

Your partner not working is part of your form E. 

50/50 of equity as of today ( or after discount period ) this is our stumbling block. 

What that results in hard cash. 

She wants 60k. I offered 25k. And she can keep everything she has. 

Does it not get taken into consideration she’s not paid nothing towards the mortgage ? 

Does the tenancy being in my sole name prior to sharing my RTB make no difference at all ? 

Surely the courts ain’t that stupid in her becoming unemployed just as courts proceedings have opened. 

The fact she found suitable accommodation when leaving FMH weakens her claim as to housing needs ? 

No her not paying towards the mortgage does not matter. The courts will not generally conduct an accounting exercise.

The tenancy being in your sole name before marriage - not really a reason for departure from equality where it's the former matrimonial home and this appears, unless there are other significant assets lying around, to be a needs case. 

Her unemployment will be usually viewed as being temporary. She will be expected to work.

And just because she's moved out it doesn't weaken her financial claims as to her housing needs. You don't get get a departure from equality in your favour because one party moves out, the matrimonial assets still need to be split.

I'm sorry to nitpick but when it comes to legal issues, correct terminology matters. The Court looks to arrive at equity in awarding parties certain financial benefits, it doesn't seek to provide 'equality' which implies a 50/50 split. Equity is based on a number of factors as you know and a 50/50 split may not be equitable.

VyEu

Jude57 said:

VyEu said:

Julz94 said:

VyEu said:

7 years? Medium length ISH marriage. 50/50 of the FMH, split the cash too, maybe small (less than 5%) deviation in equality to make us for income difference but you're both young and expected to maximise earning capacity. What's your pension provision? 10k not really worth arguing about in most cases.

Ofc above is only general, not specific, advice. You'd need your own solicitor for that. 

Your partner not working is part of your form E. 

50/50 of equity as of today ( or after discount period ) this is our stumbling block. 

What that results in hard cash. 

She wants 60k. I offered 25k. And she can keep everything she has. 

Does it not get taken into consideration she’s not paid nothing towards the mortgage ? 

Does the tenancy being in my sole name prior to sharing my RTB make no difference at all ? 

Surely the courts ain’t that stupid in her becoming unemployed just as courts proceedings have opened. 

The fact she found suitable accommodation when leaving FMH weakens her claim as to housing needs ? 

No her not paying towards the mortgage does not matter. The courts will not generally conduct an accounting exercise.

The tenancy being in your sole name before marriage - not really a reason for departure from equality where it's the former matrimonial home and this appears, unless there are other significant assets lying around, to be a needs case. 

Her unemployment will be usually viewed as being temporary. She will be expected to work.

And just because she's moved out it doesn't weaken her financial claims as to her housing needs. You don't get get a departure from equality in your favour because one party moves out, the matrimonial assets still need to be split.

I'm sorry to nitpick but when it comes to legal issues, correct terminology matters. The Court looks to arrive at equity in awarding parties certain financial benefits, it doesn't seek to provide 'equality' which implies a 50/50 split. Equity is based on a number of factors as you know and a 50/50 split may not be equitable.

Jude57 said:

VyEu said:

Julz94 said:

VyEu said:

7 years? Medium length ISH marriage. 50/50 of the FMH, split the cash too, maybe small (less than 5%) deviation in equality to make us for income difference but you're both young and expected to maximise earning capacity. What's your pension provision? 10k not really worth arguing about in most cases.

Ofc above is only general, not specific, advice. You'd need your own solicitor for that. 

Your partner not working is part of your form E. 

50/50 of equity as of today ( or after discount period ) this is our stumbling block. 

What that results in hard cash. 

She wants 60k. I offered 25k. And she can keep everything she has. 

Does it not get taken into consideration she’s not paid nothing towards the mortgage ? 

Does the tenancy being in my sole name prior to sharing my RTB make no difference at all ? 

Surely the courts ain’t that stupid in her becoming unemployed just as courts proceedings have opened. 

The fact she found suitable accommodation when leaving FMH weakens her claim as to housing needs ? 

No her not paying towards the mortgage does not matter. The courts will not generally conduct an accounting exercise.

The tenancy being in your sole name before marriage - not really a reason for departure from equality where it's the former matrimonial home and this appears, unless there are other significant assets lying around, to be a needs case. 

Her unemployment will be usually viewed as being temporary. She will be expected to work.

And just because she's moved out it doesn't weaken her financial claims as to her housing needs. You don't get get a departure from equality in your favour because one party moves out, the matrimonial assets still need to be split.

I'm sorry to nitpick but when it comes to legal issues, correct terminology matters. The Court looks to arrive at equity in awarding parties certain financial benefits, it doesn't seek to provide 'equality' which implies a 50/50 split. Equity is based on a number of factors as you know and a 50/50 split may not be equitable.

Indeed 50/50 split may not be fair in all the circumstances but it's the default position unless there are reasons to depart from it such as needs of the minor kids, income, earning capacity, age, disability etc.