Relationship breakdown and mortgage question

gwynlas

Unless their differing amounts of deposit are protected by a deed of trust then she would be entitles to the full 50% of the equity in exactly the same way as she would be if married.
As it is unlikely that she would achieve the affordability criteria to take on the mortgage alone it would be appropriate for him to buy her out.
It would then be up to her whether she rented or purchased another property that she could afford.
Of course there should be child maintenance payments eithher way depending on custody arrangements

poseidon1

Swiftpebble92 said:

There is about 100k equity in the property. I do see your point @ACG and that would be very valid. I just wondered if the bare minimum would be her initial deposit and any payments she has made since taking out the mortgage should it get to him buying her out

Assuming no agreements  in place prior to cohabitation, the absence of such agreements appears to work in favour of your friend ( to the detriment of her partner). Certainly it appears she maybe entitled to more than just her deposit back  as set out in the general guidance below -

https://howells.law/newsroom/unmarried-couples-rights/

However, if the partner is not prepared to concede to her prima facie entitlements to a share of the property, this would  undoubtedly become a contentious matter involving lawyers to the detriment of them both.

If your friend has not already done so, it would be sensible for her to read guidance on this matter similar to that supplied in this post.

Swiftpebble92

Thanks all - very helpful

ian1246

Isthisforreal99 said:

Also note that a court may order the ex-partner to continue contributing to the mortgage until the child reaches a specific age (and that partner moves out).

Which is why legal advice is imperative in this scenario.

Its the 21st century, not the 19th century. The female relative has a job and earns her own income. She therefore has the ability to meet her own housing needs - particularly given there is £100,000 equity in the property, owned as a tenants in common on a 50 / 50 basis.  Thats sufficient to buy a shared ownership property - with any rent due covered either by Universal Credit or the females income - enabling her housing needs to be met. Thats what any competent barrister would argue if it gets to court (& if it gets that far, your talking £10,000's each -  wave goodbye to a large chunk of that accumulated equity).

You've also made a sweeping assumption that the mother will be predominantly responsible for the child with your comments. 50/50 arrangements are far more common place now and come with a whole host of benefits: children with far healthier development and long term prospects (academic achievement, emotional development, mental health) vs. children raised predominantly by a single parent (there's numerous studies which show this), plus 50/50 allows both parents increased earning opportunities and therefore increased opportunity to meet individual housing needs without being tied together for the next 15 years.

Plus, if the ex is paying the mortgage for her to live in their former house, where's he going to be living & how's he going to meet his & the child housing needs? Or are we going down the route of arguing its in the child best interests that she not do overnight stays with Dad & therefore his renting a single bedroom in a HMO is sufficient (which is all he'll manage if paying 50% of another properties mortgage, unless he earns exceptional amounts).