Separation advice

sturgeon62

I’m tentatively making enquiries for my son. His partner, unmarried, has walked out of the home taking their two children, 4 and 6, stating she wants to live with a relative. They were together 7ish years. She moved into the flat he owned. Which was then sold and they brought a house. He has always paid all bills and the mortgage. When she worked it was only pin money which went on clubs, clothes, holidays etc. As a guesstimate I’m guessing there is about £100,000 equity in the house. Can anyone tell me please what share he needs to give her. I am unsure if she is co signed but I believe not.

It is very raw at the moment and he is a little in denial but she has said several times it’s over for good. She also said she doesn’t want to live in the house. They have agreed for now that he will have the children about two nights per week, alternative weekends and a week night every week. 

Not sure how the future looks, whether he wants to stay in the house or sell and start afresh.

He has looked at the government site to calculate child maintenance and knows to apply for single rate council tax. Their only other asset is a joint car that was brought with cash.

Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thank you 

Spendless

The property they bought. Whose name is that in?

Keep_pedalling

If they own the property as joint tenants then it is 50/50. If they own it as tenants in common then it will be as outlined in any deed of trust they drew up. If no deed of trust was made then the default is 50/50. 

sturgeon62

Keep_pedalling said:

If they own the property as joint tenants then it is 50/50. If they own it as tenants in common then it will be as outlined in any deed of trust they drew up. If no deed of trust was made then the default is 50/50. 

Would that be even if she’s never paid anything. I appreciate she had the children but did also do some work just never put anything into day to day expenses. Also does the 50/50 include his initial deposit

sturgeon62

Spendless said:

The property they bought. Whose name is that in?

I think it could be both. We are meeting the weekend to chat more once he’s had a last attempt at seeing if she really wants this. Deep down he knows it’s final as she insisted they told the children

Exodi

Keep_pedalling said:

If they own the property as joint tenants then it is 50/50. If they own it as tenants in common then it will be as outlined in any deed of trust they drew up. If no deed of trust was made then the default is 50/50. 

Or the third option of course that she's not on the title at all, and it would be 100/0 (unless she successfully argues for something 'out-there' like proprietary estoppel - whereby she reasonably believed she would receive an interest in the property, not common at all but included so I don't get someone hit me with 'actuallyyyyyy').

sturgeon62 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

If they own the property as joint tenants then it is 50/50. If they own it as tenants in common then it will be as outlined in any deed of trust they drew up. If no deed of trust was made then the default is 50/50. 

Would that be even if she’s never paid anything. I appreciate she had the children but did also do some work just never put anything into day to day expenses. Also does the 50/50 include his initial deposit

How much individuals contribute to the mortgage is mostly irrelevant to the ownership of a house. As you identify, it's extremely common for (mostly) women to contribute with childcare while men contribute financially.

If they own as joint tenants, then yes it would include the deposit (basically sell the house, pay off any existing mortgage and fees, and then split the remaining money 50/50).

If they purchased as tenants in common, which common means there is a deed of trust in place that stipulates the split, e.g. (paraphrasing) 'they get their deposits back, then they split 50/50' then that's what happens.

It totally depends on how the house was purchased. Who paid the bills and who changed the nappies is irrelevant (though of course, people get hung up on this for emotional reasons). I personally expect judges give short shrift to anyone who tries to argue in court that they 'paid all the bills', when there are children involved and a care requirement.

sturgeon62 said:

Spendless said:

The property they bought. Whose name is that in?

I think it could be both. We are meeting the weekend to chat more once he’s had a last attempt at seeing if she really wants this. Deep down he knows it’s final as she insisted they told the children

As I hope you can see - it's an impossible question to answer without knowing this detail.

It's not uncommon for people to (recklessly) buy houses as joint tenants (i.e. 50/50) despite bringing in a significant unequal initial contribution because 'they don't plan on breaking up'.

We see people getting stung for this naivety day in and day out.

sturgeon62

Exodi said:

Keep_pedalling said:

If they own the property as joint tenants then it is 50/50. If they own it as tenants in common then it will be as outlined in any deed of trust they drew up. If no deed of trust was made then the default is 50/50. 

Or the third option of course that she's not on the title at all, and it would be 100/0 (unless she successfully argues for something 'out-there' like proprietary estoppel - whereby she reasonably believed she would receive an interest in the property, not common at all but included so I don't get someone hit me with 'actuallyyyyyy').

sturgeon62 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

If they own the property as joint tenants then it is 50/50. If they own it as tenants in common then it will be as outlined in any deed of trust they drew up. If no deed of trust was made then the default is 50/50. 

Would that be even if she’s never paid anything. I appreciate she had the children but did also do some work just never put anything into day to day expenses. Also does the 50/50 include his initial deposit

How much individuals contribute to the mortgage is mostly irrelevant to the ownership of a house. As you identify, it's extremely common for (mostly) women to contribute with childcare while men contribute financially.

If they own as joint tenants, then yes it would include the deposit (basically sell the house, pay off any existing mortgage and fees, and then split the remaining money 50/50).

If they purchased as tenants in common, which common means there is a deed of trust in place that stipulates the split, e.g. (paraphrasing) 'they get their deposits back, then they split 50/50' then that's what happens.

It totally depends on how the house was purchased. Who paid the bills and who changed the nappies is irrelevant (though of course, people get hung up on this for emotional reasons). I personally expect judges give short shrift to anyone who tries to argue in court that they 'paid all the bills', when there are children involved and a care requirement.

sturgeon62 said:

Spendless said:

The property they bought. Whose name is that in?

I think it could be both. We are meeting the weekend to chat more once he’s had a last attempt at seeing if she really wants this. Deep down he knows it’s final as she insisted they told the children

As I hope you can see - it's an impossible question to answer without knowing this detail.

It's not uncommon for people to (recklessly) buy houses as joint tenants (i.e. 50/50) despite bringing in a significant unequal initial contribution because 'they don't plan on breaking up'.

We see people getting stung for this naivety day in and day out.

It’s certainly a minefield. I will see what happens the weekend and find out all the facts. 

Either way is it a common agreement or will he need to consult a solicitor to draw any arrangement up? 

Thank you for taking the time to reply

Exodi

sturgeon62 said:

Exodi said:

Keep_pedalling said:

If they own the property as joint tenants then it is 50/50. If they own it as tenants in common then it will be as outlined in any deed of trust they drew up. If no deed of trust was made then the default is 50/50. 

Or the third option of course that she's not on the title at all, and it would be 100/0 (unless she successfully argues for something 'out-there' like proprietary estoppel - whereby she reasonably believed she would receive an interest in the property, not common at all but included so I don't get someone hit me with 'actuallyyyyyy').

sturgeon62 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

If they own the property as joint tenants then it is 50/50. If they own it as tenants in common then it will be as outlined in any deed of trust they drew up. If no deed of trust was made then the default is 50/50. 

Would that be even if she’s never paid anything. I appreciate she had the children but did also do some work just never put anything into day to day expenses. Also does the 50/50 include his initial deposit

How much individuals contribute to the mortgage is mostly irrelevant to the ownership of a house. As you identify, it's extremely common for (mostly) women to contribute with childcare while men contribute financially.

If they own as joint tenants, then yes it would include the deposit (basically sell the house, pay off any existing mortgage and fees, and then split the remaining money 50/50).

If they purchased as tenants in common, which common means there is a deed of trust in place that stipulates the split, e.g. (paraphrasing) 'they get their deposits back, then they split 50/50' then that's what happens.

It totally depends on how the house was purchased. Who paid the bills and who changed the nappies is irrelevant (though of course, people get hung up on this for emotional reasons). I personally expect judges give short shrift to anyone who tries to argue in court that they 'paid all the bills', when there are children involved and a care requirement.

sturgeon62 said:

Spendless said:

The property they bought. Whose name is that in?

I think it could be both. We are meeting the weekend to chat more once he’s had a last attempt at seeing if she really wants this. Deep down he knows it’s final as she insisted they told the children

As I hope you can see - it's an impossible question to answer without knowing this detail.

It's not uncommon for people to (recklessly) buy houses as joint tenants (i.e. 50/50) despite bringing in a significant unequal initial contribution because 'they don't plan on breaking up'.

We see people getting stung for this naivety day in and day out.

It’s certainly a minefield. I will see what happens the weekend and find out all the facts. 

Either way is it a common agreement or will he need to consult a solicitor to draw any arrangement up? 

Thank you for taking the time to reply

Quite the contrary, how they own the property is very clear and would have been discussed with the solicitor at the point of purchase, though they may not remember.

An easy way to check this is to pay the £7 to download the title deed for the property online (https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry) and firstly seeing if she is listed on the title deeds, and secondly see under restrictions which indicates if there is a deed of trust in place (though they should remember this, they need to effectively instruct the solicitor on what they want in it). 

I'm not sure what you mean regarding 'a common agreement' or the part regarding a solicitor?

If she is not on the deeds at all - nothing needs to happen, any funds he gives her would effectively be a gift.

If she is on the deeds as Joint Tenants with him and he desires to own the house, he will likely want to instruct a solicitor to process a 'Transfer of Equity' (TR1) whereby his ex signs over her rights to the house, and he provides her an agreed amount that should be 50% of the net equity.

If she is on the deeds as Tenants in Common with him and there is a Deed of Trust in place and he desires to own the house, he will likely want to instruct a solicitor  to process a 'Transfer of Equity' (TR1) whereby his ex signs over her rights to the house, and he provides her an agreed amount that should be in line with the Deed of Trust.

He may need to take additional borrowing on the mortgage to allow this (commonly referred to as a Further Advance).

If she is on the deeds, but he doesn't want to, or can not afford to, buy her out and would rather sell instead, the process is still the same (in the sense he'd need a solicitor to sell the house and handle the disbursement to both of them).