Hi, new guy to the site to apologies if I break any rules / post in the wrong place
Im currently in a separated state with my married partner, both still living in the same house.
- Both have pensions
- Both have cars in own names
- No children
- Married 3yrs (together a total of 10)
- Joint owners of a property still under mortgage.
Now, all appeared to be amicable during the separation process (discussions of keeping the house to rent out etc, or financial arrangements in place so that if one person stayed a 50/50 split would be maintained fairly). But she has recently found a new partner.
What concerns me is that there are rumours on the grapevine that she is trying for a child with this new partner (lives with his mother in a council owned property) - If she follows though with this, will this affect the entitlement to the house even though the child is not mine?
(Sorry for the essay! - Just wanted to be complete )
I am afraid I am going to be brief. To be honest we''re fully occupied dealing with people''s real and pressing problems without dealing with hypothetical ones.
I''m afraid it all depends.
1. Is the FMH too large for you if you live there alone ?
2. If she has a partner and lives with him, her housing needs are met and that sometimes weakens her claim against the FMH.
3. It is relevant that there will be two incomes coming into her new household.
4. I can''t see how you can or should be obliged to make provision for someone else''s child.
I appreciate that my situation is not as dire as others, so no need to apologise in being concise
1. Is the FMH too large for you if you live there alone ? I would probably need a lodger to make it work financially, but it could be possible.
2. If she has a partner and lives with him, her housing needs are met and that sometimes weakens her claim against the FMH. She still technically lives here (separate bedrooms), but spends majority of time with new partner.
3. It is relevant that there will be two incomes coming into her new household. The new partner is currently on JSA, but his mother also lives there with her own assisted income
4. I can''t see how you can or should be obliged to make provision for someone else''s child. Agreed, my concern is that her being pregnant / having a child would jeopardise the 50/50 split of the houses value and that if there were any disagreement in the process, a judge would favour her due to a possibility that she wanted the FMH to raise her new family.[/i]
I have considered switching the title on the house from "Joint Tenancy" to "Tenants in Common", but I was unsure if it would be effective or whether a judge could simply overturn it.
Well now, normally where the FMH is larger then the spouse who lives there reasonably requires, there is definite possibility that , if there are no dependent children, the Court would order a sale, which would leave the resident spouse with enough to re-house him/herself, and give the other a wodge of cash which (s)he can use to secure accommodation.
The Court will be mainly concerned with satisfying the housing needs of both parties. If, for argument''s sake, you are divorced, and she lives with this new partner, then, depending on their joint circumstances, they may have enough buy a house, but if not, they can rent and housing benefit in principle is available. This happens all the time, but in another context ; namely that the wife with dependent children has the right to remain in the FMH while the children are still dependent, The husband can''t afford to buy another house after paying maintenance and therefore has to rent. But at least the Court will make sure he is left with enough to pay the rent.
When I made the point about two incomes, I was talking generally. Normally, the fact that a spouse has a new partner will have an effect, direct or indirect, on the eventual settlement.
May I make it as plain as I can that the Courts do not make decisions on the basis of the grapevine or rumour. If your wife has a child by someone else that is a fact. If she hasn''t that is also a fact.
The issue is controversial and it normally arises where a spouse who pays maintenance gets a new partner, possibly has a child, and then says, sorry, can''t afford the maintenance. There are some judges who just would not accept that. We have come across cases where judges have said, OK, you can marry, you can have kids, but you have to pay the maintenance. Your problem.
For the record, I myself re-married when paying maintenance to an ex, but did not apply for a reduction on that account.
But there are others who will say there is life after divorce, the child has been born and the Court must take account of the reality of the situation.
But I think you have a perfectly reasonable argument that if your wife forms a new relationship and has a child, you can''t be expected to support either of them , directly or indirectly.
As to whether to sever a joint tenancy, in 98-99% of cases it makes little difference. There is an article in the wiki library called " A Guide as to what to do when considering divorce " or something like that, which you''ll find under " Finances " and then " Splitting up the assets ", where the subject of severance is discussed.