Divorced but partner with child wont sell house

Herzlos

housebuyer143 said:

I don't think having the property repossessed is in any way a good idea. The OP wants to buy another house - no way he gets a mortgage after he's been repossessed...

Oh I'm absolutely not recommending he goes through with the reposession but laying out the reality of the choices may give the ex sufficient perspective to see that he won't be paying her mortgage forever. 

Section62

ian1246 said:

Section62 said:

ian1246 said:

Hoenir said:

elsien said:

The issue is normally the ability to obtain an adequate mortgage. Smaller properties are relatively still expensive. 

If there is £200,000 equity in the property, I would suggest this is not the case. The ex absolutely would be expected to show flexibility - whether that be a smaller mortgage on a 100% owned house or just buying a share of a property outright in a shared ownership.

The ex is a single parent caring for a 4 year old child.  Their ability to earn is limited by their caring responsibilities, even when the child goes to school she still either has to work part-time, or else pay for childcare.  On a part-time income the outgoings for herself and a child are likely to cause her affordability issues, even with a decent deposit.

The ex would only be expected to show flexibility if there is a viable alternative to her staying in the property with the child.

ian1246 said:

Ex is being very unreasonable - Op, before you force the issue start documenting & evidencing all your child contact for a period of time. That way if the ex weaponises your access to the children in retaliation, you'll be able to demonstrate the status quo at court & demonstrate the parental alienation.

That is for a judge to decide - what you, I, or anyone else on the forum thinks is irrelevant.  The judge will put the needs of the child first, and that primarily means having a decent and stable home to live in with at least one parent.  If there isn't the equity to provide two owned homes then the judge gets to decide what is the next best alternative.  That may be the ex gets to live in the house until the child is no longer a child.

There is a presumption in law of a clean break - the sole exception to depart from that is based on necessity. There is £200,000 of equity in the property - that is a significant sum of money to meet the needs of both parties- even if its as lopsided as the ex getting £150,000 of it whilst the OP gets £50,000 of it, due to differences in earning potential.

Yes, "necessity".  The presumption of a clean break is subordinate to the needs assessment, and the prioritising of the child.  The judge must also find a sustainable solution, if one exists.

ian1246 said:

Your also confusing "housing needs" with "owned home". A rented home is perfectly capable of meeting a child's housing needs also.

I'm not confusing anything.  The needs of the child are prioritised, including the provision of a home for them.  That could be a rented home, but the judge - looking at the family's situation as a whole - gets to decide whether forcing the sale of the family home is a) feasible and b) in the interests of the child(ren).  

An owned family home provides stability, and may be the only financially viable option.  Renting isn't as easy as it once was, people with good incomes and excellent prospects can struggle to find a home to rent.  Depending on the local situation a rental property may be more expensive than an owned property, and typically provides stability for only one year at a time. The OP will know better than us how easy it would be to rent a 2-bed property in the area, with a living standard equivalent to the current family home.  But renting = more uncertainty.  The judge will need to weigh up whether the OP's needs outweigh that uncertainty for the child.

ian1246 said:

Playing the childcare card in the modern age absolutely does not work - there is a requirement in law that all parties maximise their earning potential. The Op's solicitor will argue similarly. A judge disregarding the presumption of a clean break, expecting the OP to go into financial ruin and continue subsidising the ex for the next 14 years whilst being unable to meet HIS housing needs (lets not forget his requirement to have a property his children can stay at) when there are options (£200,000!!!) on the table for the ex, would be extraordinary in the modern age.

It isn't a "card".  It is a simple fact of life that judges must take into account when assessing needs.

One of the risks the OP faces (I've mentioned it upthread already) is hearing emotive language like "...expecting the OP to go into financial ruin and continue subsidising the ex for the next 14 years..." and allowing this to affect how he approaches the situation.

Rather than listening to such inflamatory comments, the OP would be better off reading the kind of official and neutral guidance (published in the "modern age") which explains the process and how decisions are taken -

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/guidance-on-financial-needs-on-divorce-june-2016-2.pdf

https://www.advicenow.org.uk/get-help/family-and-children/divorce-and-separation/sorting-out-your-finances-when-you-get-divorced

If the judge does allow the ex to stay in the family home then it won't be to "subsidis[e] the ex for the next 14 years" it will be to make sure the OP's child has at least one stable family home until they are no longer a child.  Understanding this - without all the emotive stuff - is the key to finding a solution.

ian1246 said:

Especially as the judge will be obligated to consider the impact of the OP remaining tied to the mortgage on his borrowing capacity to meet his own housing needs, or the impact that will have on the Op's ability to meet the financial checks required to rent a sufficiently sized property - his housing needs are just as important as the ex's in terms of minimal space (2 bedrooms), given the law expressly expects a child to have a relationship with BOTH parents (the child not having a bedroom at 1 parents house = a huge barrier to that. That is what the OP's solicitor will no doubt argue).

The OP's own housing needs are currently met.

With regard to the BiB, that simply isn't true.  Many families don't have enough bedrooms for each child to have their own, and provided the law is complied with in terms of overcrowding, the argument the OP needs to sell the family home to buy a 2-bed house is a weak one.

The law does expect the child to have a relationship with both parents, but if the housing situation doesn't allow overnight stays at one parent's home then that expectation could be met by (perhaps increased) contact during the day - or, for example, taking the child 'home' to sleep overnight.  You can argue that isn't ideal, but keeping a spare bedroom is just one of the wants/needs the judge gets to assess among all the other less-than-ideals.

The OP's solicitor will no doubt argue a lot of stuff.  But based on my experience, about half an hour before the final hearing they will have a huddle with the ex's solicitor to thrash out an agreement, and come back to tell the OP a lot of those arguments aren't ones the judge is likely to agree with... 'so you'll be better off accepting this deal'. (which is how a lot of litigation ends)

ian1246 said:

And for the record - my son is 4 years old and I'm his main parent (60/40 split) - i work full time hours in the emergency services (thankfully with flexible working). Working full time absolutely can be done if your willing to do so - but then again, i've never viewed my son as a negotiating chip for a financial settlement, or as a means to financially exploit or financially abuse my ex (i haven't claimed the child benefit and I don't ask for child maintainance, even though i could, since if I did it will likely be ruinous for the ex and inturn impact my son's time & experience with his mother).

More of the emotive stuff - "...negotiating chip...financially exploit or financially abuse my ex..." - it really doesn't help to find a resolution to put words like that into the mix.

ian1246 said:

Regardless, there is no getting away from the £200,000 equity in the property - £150,000 going to the ex would cover any realistic purchase of a shared-ownership property, meeting her / the child's housing needs. The remaining rent on the part she doesn't owned can be claimed back on universal credit.

£200k sounds a lot, but knock off (say) £40k for legal costs (£20k each) to get a financial order, then another (say) £10k for EA/conveyancing costs (more if the ex goes on to buy elsewhere) and that's down to £150k.  Which assumes the £200k equity is a realistic figure in the current market and in the desired (or ordered) selling timescale (buyers may be wary of buying from a divorcing couple, which could impact on price/timescales).

Then knock off any other debts the couple have together or individually.  The OP has mentioned his credit card debt, but the ex's true financial position may not be known until the Form E process is completed.

What will be left to split after that?

Section62

Herzlos said:

housebuyer143 said:

I don't think having the property repossessed is in any way a good idea. The OP wants to buy another house - no way he gets a mortgage after he's been repossessed...

Oh I'm absolutely not recommending he goes through with the reposession but laying out the reality of the choices may give the ex sufficient perspective to see that he won't be paying her mortgage forever. 

It's certainly a strategy some solicitors would suggest... but is a risky one which might open up the 'conduct' avenue for the ex's solicitor to explore.

The OP's strength is in needing some of the equity in the family home to buy a house to meet his own housing needs.  If he negates that option by wrecking any prospect of being able to buy himself then it might make it easier for the judge to decide the equity is better left where it is.

Obviously you aren't suggesting the OP goes through with it - but the problem potentially comes in raising it as a possibility... if the judge gets to hear about it.

If the inability to pay the mortgage is genuine, then this needs to be apparent in the OP's Form E.

Also worth the comment that if the ex is allowed to stay in the family home with the OP keeping a 50% share (and being paid when eventually sold) then it won't be "her mortgage", but rather still "their mortgage" - and the OP stands to profit from any increase in the value of the property until it is sold or the ex agrees to buy him out.

itsatoughone123

Thanks everyone. So an update. I saw a mediator and she seemed really nice and understanding. Since the conversation with my ex about the house (where she exploded) she has been all super friendly and happy. But I explained that I saw a mediator and that she will be contacted by them she's gone off at me again trying to make me feel guilty, saying she's been nice so far in that she hasn't tried to come for my savings, pension, my car.... Then ended on saying I don't care about our daughter. Obviously not true, I'd have her full time if my ex would allow it. 

Definitely a rock and hard place situation. 

HampshireH

itsatoughone123 said:

Thanks everyone. So an update. I saw a mediator and she seemed really nice and understanding. Since the conversation with my ex about the house (where she exploded) she has been all super friendly and happy. But I explained that I saw a mediator and that she will be contacted by them she's gone off at me again trying to make me feel guilty, saying she's been nice so far in that she hasn't tried to come for my savings, pension, my car.... Then ended on saying I don't care about our daughter. Obviously not true, I'd have her full time if my ex would allow it. 

Definitely a rock and hard place situation. 

She feels under threat and gone into attack mode. Keep calm but keep doing what you need to do. The message will sink in eventually 

poseidon1

itsatoughone123 said:

Thanks everyone. So an update. I saw a mediator and she seemed really nice and understanding. Since the conversation with my ex about the house (where she exploded) she has been all super friendly and happy. But I explained that I saw a mediator and that she will be contacted by them she's gone off at me again trying to make me feel guilty, saying she's been nice so far in that she hasn't tried to come for my savings, pension, my car.... Then ended on saying I don't care about our daughter. Obviously not true, I'd have her full time if my ex would allow it. 

Definitely a rock and hard place situation. 

Be aware, the threat to your pension in the financial settlement process could be a real one, depending on the size of your pension expectations compared to equity in the house.

ian1246

Regardless of her threats, you both need financial closure. That means reaching a binding legal agreement which address pensions, savings & equity. With regards to your car - does she have her own? Unless its hugely expensive, a judge would likely view it as mostly irrelevant - a means of transportation to allow you to work / discharge your obligations around parenting.

If she's being unpleasant or mentioning the matters under discussion, it may be best to leave all communication to your mediation sessions.

pinkshoes

itsatoughone123 said:

Thanks everyone. So an update. I saw a mediator and she seemed really nice and understanding. Since the conversation with my ex about the house (where she exploded) she has been all super friendly and happy. But I explained that I saw a mediator and that she will be contacted by them she's gone off at me again trying to make me feel guilty, saying she's been nice so far in that she hasn't tried to come for my savings, pension, my car.... Then ended on saying I don't care about our daughter. Obviously not true, I'd have her full time if my ex would allow it. 

Definitely a rock and hard place situation. 

Not really a rock and a hard place.

You're offering her essentially more than 50% of all assets (including your pension and the value of her car) which is more than fair. She can then take this money and afford to buy another property (shared ownership) for her and your daughter.

She needs to be realistic. If she won't play ball with the mediator, then I suggest a firmly worded letter stating that your offer of over half the equity is more than fair, and that if she won't accept, then unfortunately you will need to go down the legal route of forcing a sale, where any costs will be deducted from her equity share due to refusing the sensible offer that will allow both of you to move on with your lives. 

itsatoughone123

Thanks everyone. My car is a vintage car. It's not got a huge value but I've had it since I was a teenager and long before we met. 
Today I refused to pay the full amount I usually do each month and halved it (still way more than what's expected of me) and was met with abuse about not paying the mortgage. I keep explaining that I can't maintain the amount I've been paying. 
I saw a mediator a few weeks ago and she will be speaking to my ex wife shortly too. She wasn't happy about it but it's the only fair way. 
I don't think I'm being unreasonable to not pay nearly 1k a month just to keep her in a house I co own and don't live in. I still always see my daughter when I can and have her over at weekends and the summer holidays. 

I dunno, my auntie says I'm too soft and need to stop being emotionally manipulated. Maybe she's right. 

Section62

itsatoughone123 said:

...
I dunno, my auntie says I'm too soft and need to stop being emotionally manipulated. Maybe she's right. 

Family always make those sort of comments in a divorce situation... they are on your side.  But unless they are a divorce lawyer it is best to ignore them, because a family member on your side won't necessarily understand the law and how your actions might be used against you later.

Get yourself a family law solicitor and do what they tell you.  And be yourself, don't act the way family/friends tell you to.

Did you discuss the reduced payment with your ex before today?  Did she know to expect it, or was the first she knew when the payment landed?