I would appreciate it if somebody could shed some light on my options.
I am recently separated from my wife. Remaining in the family home was not helping issues and was affecting my two children aged 9 and 11.
Last month As a result I had no option other than to take a £2k loan in order that I could put a deposit down and pay the first months rent and but furniture to set up a home for myself and provide for my children when they stop over two nights a week. whilst at the same time paying the mortgage due for that month.
It was understood that she would take on the mortgage payments (£1050) at the end of this month as I had rent to pay (1100). This would take the form of me paying the mortgage on the 28 of May along with my rent due. She would then pay back to me £500 the balance of the mortgage payment would be taken in leiu of me paying child maintenance. but this would be when her tax credits kick in.
She wants to remotgage the house in her sole name (with registering I have an interest of 33% of the property)As she is unable to but me out. But is ae to get the mortgage on the outstanding balance of £130k And when and if she can afford to buy me out sometime in the future. The equity in the house is about £130k.
The issue is I am now straddled with a debt for the first time in 5 years with monthly repayments of £250 per month. If there is a way I getting 3% of the equity out of the house to pay off the loan as well as pay for the Quick divorce she wants.
If this is not possible then I am going to find myself in further debit and worry that I will not be able to pay the debit.
I suspect there may be one or two typing errors in your post and that is one reason why I find it difficult to advise.
If the wife is to stay in the marital home, she must be able to afford it with the aid of such resources as she has or could acquire, including salary, maintenance, benefits, whatever. If she can't do this she should not be " awarded ' the right to live in the house.
You mention your wife re-mortgaging in her sole name. She can do this only if the title to the property is in her sole name. Is it ? Did you sign a transfer ? If you did, how is your share to be protected ?
It would be unusual for you to come away with no interest in the former marital home at all. The displaced spouse will usually retain an interest but may have to wait some time before he ( it almost always is a he ) can actually realise it.
There'are a number of ways in which this can be done. The property may remain in joint names, in which case she can't mortgage it or sell it without your consent. What you need to watch out for is that you don't want your ex creating a new mortgage on the property which would have priority over your right to receive your share.
It is critical for me to know whether the property is in joint names or not. If the property is to be in her sole name, you must take a charge on the property to secure your eventual share and to set out the circumstances when you can realise it. The wording of this is critical and requires legal advice, there are all sorts of implications, like, who maintains and insures the former marital home ?
It is definitely not something which should be attempted by
But you should be able to tell me whether the property is in joint names.
Good afternoon LMM
Thank you for your reply-
As things stand the house is jointly owned (on the understanding at the time that it was 50:50% ownership.) I would pay the mortgage, rates and utilities recognising that she was at the time on almost minimum wage and she would pay the food bill. And until now it has always been understood to be the case. It was also understood that it was to be the house for my retirement (part of our pension planning- I am aged 50 she is 39) That changed after she had a talk with a solicitor.
She states that her solicitor has advised she can stay in the house until my Youngest (aged 10) turns 18 (I think we need to state remains in full time education to be more realistic) and therefore the house can not be sold. ( your comment about having to show how she can afford it is of interest)
Her claim is that she can take out a mortgage in her own right and will buy me out at the end of the fixed term period. ( I suspect this will not happen unless she has an agreement with her father for a loan out of his inherited money)
I for one would be far more comfortable if the property remained under a joint mortgage until such time as she buys me out with an agreed split of he equity. But she does not want to do this as she does not want to be financially tied to me( not sure how that works if I own a share of the house)
As I say, there is no point in giving her the right to live in the former marital home unless she can afford to do so. If she can't she'll probably be evicted and nobody gains from that.
If the property is in joint names, the presumption is that you both own a 50% share. If either of you thinks (s)he is entitled to more than 50% it will be up to the person making the claim to substantiate it.
It is not by any means unusual for the wife to have the right to remain in the family home until the youngest attains majority. I wouldn't be
too optimistic about getting an earlier date.
There are other possibllities which could trigger off a sale earlier than your son's 18th birthday. Re-marriage is the main one, as would be voluntary vacation ( though it is usual for the order to provide for the wife having the right to move home and transfer the charge to the new house ).
If she is to have the right to buy you out, the order must be very specific about quite a number of things. There must be definite timetables and provision for settling the purchase price. It isn't uncommon for the former spouses to disagree on this.
If you are still liable on the mortgage of the former family home but are not living there, you could ( and probably would ) be sued if she defaults. There are specific clauses that would need to be
inserted to protect your position. If you are still an owner you can block any attempt on her part to re-mortgage.
I hope I have said enough to persuade you that some legal advice might to come amiss.
Thank you LMM.
I really do appreciate the advice.
I am in a catch 22 as to get legal advice cost money- to do that I need her to pay her share of the mortgage or try and get a further loan.
But being made aware of the position of the issues I need to consider as you have pointed out helps me get my thoughts together so that I use the time I pay for to get the right legal advice.