separating from partner - experiences
05 August 2006, 08:45 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
separating from partner - experiences
Hi All,
would like to pick the collective brains of NSR - unfortunately my partner of 6 and a half years (and mother of my 2 beautiful children) look like we are separating.
We are co habiting and have been doing so for the past 6 years.
A bit of background - I am sole owner of the property and have paid the mortgage fully myself along with all bills. My partner wishes to move out and rent and take the kids.
I am fully aware of the legal situation financially, but I wish to provide (as well as maintainence as defined by the CSA) a lump sum, probably in the region of 30k to help my ex partner set up. OK, a fair bit, but not really a massive amount when equity in the house is considered (represents about 30%). I just think it is a fair reflection of the effort the ex has put into the relationship (working part time etc). It is essentially to secure the kids future.
Having had some initial legal advice, it would appear that I can draw up a separation agreement detailng this. Does anyone have any experience of these - how watertight they are etc?
If you have been in this situation, what did your agreement contain?
Thanks in advance,
406
would like to pick the collective brains of NSR - unfortunately my partner of 6 and a half years (and mother of my 2 beautiful children) look like we are separating.
We are co habiting and have been doing so for the past 6 years.
A bit of background - I am sole owner of the property and have paid the mortgage fully myself along with all bills. My partner wishes to move out and rent and take the kids.
I am fully aware of the legal situation financially, but I wish to provide (as well as maintainence as defined by the CSA) a lump sum, probably in the region of 30k to help my ex partner set up. OK, a fair bit, but not really a massive amount when equity in the house is considered (represents about 30%). I just think it is a fair reflection of the effort the ex has put into the relationship (working part time etc). It is essentially to secure the kids future.
Having had some initial legal advice, it would appear that I can draw up a separation agreement detailng this. Does anyone have any experience of these - how watertight they are etc?
If you have been in this situation, what did your agreement contain?
Thanks in advance,
406
05 August 2006, 09:04 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiss the house goodbye!!!
sad but true, her solictor will argue very successfully that it would be disruptive to the little ones to turf them out, you,ll get your house back in about 18 years..
Mart
sad but true, her solictor will argue very successfully that it would be disruptive to the little ones to turf them out, you,ll get your house back in about 18 years..
Mart
05 August 2006, 09:09 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Be who you are and say what you feel. Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
Posts: 3,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i was in a similar situation - i owned a property, mortgage in my name only... my ex still managed to get a reasonable percentage 
05 August 2006, 09:10 PM
#4
Originally Posted by 406dude
Hi All,
would like to pick the collective brains of NSR - unfortunately my partner of 6 and a half years (and mother of my 2 beautiful children) look like we are separating.
We are co habiting and have been doing so for the past 6 years.
A bit of background - I am sole owner of the property and have paid the mortgage fully myself along with all bills. My partner wishes to move out and rent and take the kids.
I am fully aware of the legal situation financially, but I wish to provide (as well as maintainence as defined by the CSA) a lump sum, probably in the region of 30k to help my ex partner set up. OK, a fair bit, but not really a massive amount when equity in the house is considered (represents about 30%). I just think it is a fair reflection of the effort the ex has put into the relationship (working part time etc). It is essentially to secure the kids future.
Having had some initial legal advice, it would appear that I can draw up a separation agreement detailng this. Does anyone have any experience of these - how watertight they are etc?
If you have been in this situation, what did your agreement contain?
Thanks in advance,
406
would like to pick the collective brains of NSR - unfortunately my partner of 6 and a half years (and mother of my 2 beautiful children) look like we are separating.
We are co habiting and have been doing so for the past 6 years.
A bit of background - I am sole owner of the property and have paid the mortgage fully myself along with all bills. My partner wishes to move out and rent and take the kids.
I am fully aware of the legal situation financially, but I wish to provide (as well as maintainence as defined by the CSA) a lump sum, probably in the region of 30k to help my ex partner set up. OK, a fair bit, but not really a massive amount when equity in the house is considered (represents about 30%). I just think it is a fair reflection of the effort the ex has put into the relationship (working part time etc). It is essentially to secure the kids future.
Having had some initial legal advice, it would appear that I can draw up a separation agreement detailng this. Does anyone have any experience of these - how watertight they are etc?
If you have been in this situation, what did your agreement contain?
Thanks in advance,
406
05 August 2006, 09:49 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at the moment fairly amicable - partner wants to move out (we are not married BTW).
From what I have read (and got from my solicitor) it is clear that she could hold the house for the kids until 18 years old etc, but she doesn't want to - the law seems fairly clear otherwise -the house is mine. Is this not the case?
Like I say, I want the kids looked after and think 30k is reasonable given that she has not contributed to the mortgage at all. I'm just not sure how it would turn out if it went to court (which I really hope it doesn't). Without being soppy I still have a lot of fellings for my partner and do not want her hurt.
From what I have read (and got from my solicitor) it is clear that she could hold the house for the kids until 18 years old etc, but she doesn't want to - the law seems fairly clear otherwise -the house is mine. Is this not the case?
Like I say, I want the kids looked after and think 30k is reasonable given that she has not contributed to the mortgage at all. I'm just not sure how it would turn out if it went to court (which I really hope it doesn't). Without being soppy I still have a lot of fellings for my partner and do not want her hurt.
05 August 2006, 09:55 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Her solicitor wont give a monkeys about your good will unfortuantely, their job is to take you for everything you are worth. If you wave 30k in front of them they will look at that like waving a red rag to a bull, 30k will just be base camp for them once they see that sort of money available for their client. A mutual agreement, whether witnessed by legal representaives or not, wont stand in court if she decides to play dirty and take you to the cleaners at a later date. Judges go with the mother and kids and don't give two hoots about the dads.
05 August 2006, 10:08 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
Her solicitor wont give a monkeys about your good will unfortuantely, their job is to take you for everything you are worth. If you wave 30k in front of them they will look at that like waving a red rag to a bull, 30k will just be base camp for them once they see that sort of money available for their client. A mutual agreement, whether witnessed by legal representaives or not, wont stand in court if she decides to play dirty and take you to the cleaners at a later date. Judges go with the mother and kids and don't give two hoots about the dads.
Trending Topics
05 August 2006, 10:29 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Partly, certainly the judges bit is 100% from personal experience but also some of the financial stuff as well. I lost just over 50% of my equity when I was the only one who had paid the mortgage and bills. I was lucky to come away with the house and any equity at all. Solicitors can turn amicable situations into nasty situations so always go for damage limitation and aim for your figure to be the final amount, not as the solicitors will want to do which is use that as a starting point.
Don't forget solicitors are there to make money, the more arguments you have, the longer it goes on for the more work they get paid for and the less amount of money the both of you end up with. They have an interest in making it nasty.
Don't forget solicitors are there to make money, the more arguments you have, the longer it goes on for the more work they get paid for and the less amount of money the both of you end up with. They have an interest in making it nasty.
05 August 2006, 10:34 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
Partly, certainly the judges bit is 100% from personal experience but also some of the financial stuff as well. I lost just over 50% of my equity when I was the only one who had paid the mortgage and bills. I was lucky to come away with the house and any equity at all. Solicitors can turn amicable situations into nasty situations so always go for damage limitation and aim for your figure to be the final amount, not as the solicitors will want to do which is use that as a starting point.
Don't forget solicitors are there to make money, the more arguments you have, the longer it goes on for the more work they get paid for and the less amount of money the both of you end up with. They have an interest in making it nasty.
Don't forget solicitors are there to make money, the more arguments you have, the longer it goes on for the more work they get paid for and the less amount of money the both of you end up with. They have an interest in making it nasty.
06 August 2006, 01:33 AM
#12
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Passing ...............
Posts: 13,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I split from my g/f a while back just after she gave birth to our son (her 1st, my 2nd) she was a nasty bitch, wanting to take me to cleaner as she was well aware of my situation, so i sold the house very quickly (in my name) & sold the cars (535d & 330d Cab all under year old), i bought an E320 Cdi 55 reg & fired it into my companys name. I managed to move everything i had into either my parents name or the companys name.
I was well protected. If she involves a "good" lawyer then do what i done & protect everything.
Tbh we are back together but again there isnt nothing in my name. I am not working hard for someone to take everything off me.
Good Luck
I was well protected. If she involves a "good" lawyer then do what i done & protect everything.
Tbh we are back together but again there isnt nothing in my name. I am not working hard for someone to take everything off me.
Good Luck
06 August 2006, 08:23 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i was married for 7 years, house etc, the best i could hope to come out with after the very acrimonious split was half of the,, wait for it equity in the property ffs not half the propertys worth, just half the equity,and i would have to wait until the kids were 18!!
given that i would have still been liable for the property if my ex decided to get funny, i decided it wasnt worth it... i took a protected 2.5K settlement and walked......even then the money grabbing so and so still tried to get that back from me later on.FFS
be prpared for a protracted messy time
Mart
given that i would have still been liable for the property if my ex decided to get funny, i decided it wasnt worth it... i took a protected 2.5K settlement and walked......even then the money grabbing so and so still tried to get that back from me later on.FFS
be prpared for a protracted messy time
Mart
06 August 2006, 08:36 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: I have achieved! I own one!
Posts: 7,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=406dude]
... that she has not contributed to the mortgage at all. quote]
I know I'll be shot down in flames but it always amazes me that people can make this statement.
I don't know your personal circumstances 406, but at some point in your relationship you must have agreed who had the larger financial input and who had the larger child care input. You say your partner worked part time so presumably she had a larger share of the child care responsibility. I also assume you know the cost of good child care, had your partner chosen to return to work full time.
It's maybe unfair to single you out 406 because of all the sob stories on here about being ripped off by wives/partners you're the first to accept that the mother of your children is perhaps entitled to more than a suitcase full of clothes when she leaves.
However..."not contributing to the mortgage at all" is nonsense. You have both made a hugh contribution to your relationship, your children and, whether you like it or not, the bricks and mortar as well. Without knowing any details, while you were paying the mortgage and the bills, your partner was, apart from working part time, running your home and looking after your children. It's only too sad that there is no value put on the latter two.
Just an observation.
... that she has not contributed to the mortgage at all. quote]
I know I'll be shot down in flames but it always amazes me that people can make this statement.
I don't know your personal circumstances 406, but at some point in your relationship you must have agreed who had the larger financial input and who had the larger child care input. You say your partner worked part time so presumably she had a larger share of the child care responsibility. I also assume you know the cost of good child care, had your partner chosen to return to work full time.
It's maybe unfair to single you out 406 because of all the sob stories on here about being ripped off by wives/partners you're the first to accept that the mother of your children is perhaps entitled to more than a suitcase full of clothes when she leaves.
However..."not contributing to the mortgage at all" is nonsense. You have both made a hugh contribution to your relationship, your children and, whether you like it or not, the bricks and mortar as well. Without knowing any details, while you were paying the mortgage and the bills, your partner was, apart from working part time, running your home and looking after your children. It's only too sad that there is no value put on the latter two.
Just an observation.
06 August 2006, 08:44 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Jaydee5]
... that she has not contributed to the mortgage at all. quote]
I know I'll be shot down in flames but it always amazes me that people can make this statement.
I don't know your personal circumstances 406, but at some point in your relationship you must have agreed who had the larger financial input and who had the larger child care input. You say your partner worked part time so presumably she had a larger share of the child care responsibility. I also assume you know the cost of good child care, had your partner chosen to return to work full time.
It's maybe unfair to single you out 406 because of all the sob stories on here about being ripped off by wives/partners you're the first to accept that the mother of your children is perhaps entitled to more than a suitcase full of clothes when she leaves.
However..."not contributing to the mortgage at all" is nonsense. You have both made a hugh contribution to your relationship, your children and, whether you like it or not, the bricks and mortar as well. Without knowing any details, while you were paying the mortgage and the bills, your partner was, apart from working part time, running your home and looking after your children. It's only too sad that there is no value put on the latter two.
Just an observation.
Jaydee, I totally agree, that is exactly why I am prepared to make an offer - my partner has done a superb job bringing up our children. She now wants to maove on and I think the offer is reasonable. The fact remains thought that there was no financial contribution to the mortgage - semantics maybe but the statement is true nonetheless. Yes, she has contributed hugely to the upbringing of our children and I just want to see them secure in the future.
Originally Posted by 406dude
... that she has not contributed to the mortgage at all. quote]
I know I'll be shot down in flames but it always amazes me that people can make this statement.
I don't know your personal circumstances 406, but at some point in your relationship you must have agreed who had the larger financial input and who had the larger child care input. You say your partner worked part time so presumably she had a larger share of the child care responsibility. I also assume you know the cost of good child care, had your partner chosen to return to work full time.
It's maybe unfair to single you out 406 because of all the sob stories on here about being ripped off by wives/partners you're the first to accept that the mother of your children is perhaps entitled to more than a suitcase full of clothes when she leaves.
However..."not contributing to the mortgage at all" is nonsense. You have both made a hugh contribution to your relationship, your children and, whether you like it or not, the bricks and mortar as well. Without knowing any details, while you were paying the mortgage and the bills, your partner was, apart from working part time, running your home and looking after your children. It's only too sad that there is no value put on the latter two.
Just an observation.
06 August 2006, 09:07 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: I have achieved! I own one!
Posts: 7,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=406dude]
Jaydee, I totally agree, that is exactly why I am prepared to make an offer - my partner has done a superb job bringing up our children. She now wants to maove on and I think the offer is reasonable. The fact remains thought that there was no financial contribution to the mortgage - semantics maybe but the statement is true nonetheless. Yes, she has contributed hugely to the upbringing of our children and I just want to see them secure in the future.
Do what you planned in your first post. It is, strangely enough, quite normal for people to separate and manage their own affairs without the involvement of solicitors..and to do it amicably. Life is so much easier for all concerned if the end of a relationship isn't tainted with a bitter fight.
Good luck to both of you, and the children.
Originally Posted by Jaydee5
Jaydee, I totally agree, that is exactly why I am prepared to make an offer - my partner has done a superb job bringing up our children. She now wants to maove on and I think the offer is reasonable. The fact remains thought that there was no financial contribution to the mortgage - semantics maybe but the statement is true nonetheless. Yes, she has contributed hugely to the upbringing of our children and I just want to see them secure in the future.
Do what you planned in your first post. It is, strangely enough, quite normal for people to separate and manage their own affairs without the involvement of solicitors..and to do it amicably. Life is so much easier for all concerned if the end of a relationship isn't tainted with a bitter fight.Good luck to both of you, and the children.
06 August 2006, 11:32 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sti-04!!
I split from my g/f a while back just after she gave birth to our son (her 1st, my 2nd) she was a nasty bitch, wanting to take me to cleaner as she was well aware of my situation, so i sold the house very quickly (in my name) & sold the cars (535d & 330d Cab all under year old), i bought an E320 Cdi 55 reg & fired it into my companys name. I managed to move everything i had into either my parents name or the companys name.
I was well protected. If she involves a "good" lawyer then do what i done & protect everything.
Tbh we are back together but again there isnt nothing in my name. I am not working hard for someone to take everything off me.
Good Luck
I was well protected. If she involves a "good" lawyer then do what i done & protect everything.
Tbh we are back together but again there isnt nothing in my name. I am not working hard for someone to take everything off me.
Good Luck
06 August 2006, 11:38 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Miss Kinky
i was in a similar situation - i owned a property, mortgage in my name only... my ex still managed to get a reasonable percentage
Marrying someone is a serious step.One should be careful.
06 August 2006, 12:14 PM
#22
Originally Posted by **************
Her solicitor wont give a monkeys about your good will unfortuantely, their job is to take you for everything you are worth. If you wave 30k in front of them they will look at that like waving a red rag to a bull, 30k will just be base camp for them once they see that sort of money available for their client. A mutual agreement, whether witnessed by legal representaives or not, wont stand in court if she decides to play dirty and take you to the cleaners at a later date. Judges go with the mother and kids and don't give two hoots about the dads.
06 August 2006, 12:19 PM
#23
[QUOTE=406dude]
Jaydee, I totally agree, that is exactly why I am prepared to make an offer - my partner has done a superb job bringing up our children. She now wants to maove on and I think the offer is reasonable. The fact remains thought that there was no financial contribution to the mortgage - semantics maybe but the statement is true nonetheless. Yes, she has contributed hugely to the upbringing of our children and I just want to see them secure in the future.
A totally unreasonable offer IMO and one that the solicitors would agree with. You are essentially saying she has only contributed £30,000 worth of childcare over the last 6 1/2 years. I would say £100,000 would be closer to the mark. If you consider that nannies cost £300-£400 a week then 5-6 years at £15,000 to £20,000pa is more realistic.
Originally Posted by Jaydee5
Jaydee, I totally agree, that is exactly why I am prepared to make an offer - my partner has done a superb job bringing up our children. She now wants to maove on and I think the offer is reasonable. The fact remains thought that there was no financial contribution to the mortgage - semantics maybe but the statement is true nonetheless. Yes, she has contributed hugely to the upbringing of our children and I just want to see them secure in the future.
06 August 2006, 05:17 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well from what I've read around the subject in the past...
I was under the impression that if you're not married, anything you bring to the party is yours for the keeping after it ends. Houses are slightly different if the other party can prove that they made substantial contributions to it (and ironing and cooking don't count - actual real regular finacial contributions).
So, if the house is in your name, you could even argue that she's entitled to nothing at all. The most she should be able to get is half the equity max as far as I'm aware.
The point is - the guy is not married! I'm sure the people responding above are confused about this. The government/press are forever going on about "common-law" wives not having any legal rights whatsoever.
I quote "
What about the family home ? What is the effect in practical terms? Let's take a fictitious couple, call them Jerry and Mick and give them two young children and a family home to live in. If they were married, on divorce, Jerry would be likely to get enough of a share in the equity in their house to buy or rent a property of her own that she could live in with the children.
If Jerry and Mick were not married Jerry would have to prove that she was entitled to a share in the property. She may be able to do this if:
(a) She contributed to the purchase price when the property was bought. Although if for example she only provided a 10% deposit that could mean she would only be entitled to 10% of the net equity.
(b) She can show that Mick promised her that the house would be theirs jointly if she made some contribution. It is best if she can show that Mick put his promise in writing, although it does not have to be a formal document and love letters can be enough. The contribution must be fairly significant, for example paying for the shopping and the curtains would possibly not be enough. In those circumstances all Jerry may entitled to under the law is the curtains:
(c) Even if there is nothing in writing from Mick, Jerry may still be able to claim a share of the house. She would have to show that she relied on Mick's promise and as a result made a significant contribution to what she thought was going to be her home too, for example, paying for a new conservatory or carrying out some hard physical labour like getting out a sledge hammer and doing some serious refurbishment to the house. Decorating and giving up a career to look after the children, even if it is a lucrative modelling career, is unlikely to be enough.
So if Mick and Jerry were not married and Jerry had never laid eyes on a sledge hammer or paid for a conservatory it could mean that after many years of living with Mick and bringing up their children she would have much less to show for her years of commitment and hard work than if she and Mick had been married. Jerry might be able to persuade Mick or a court that she should live in the house with the children until the children were grown up, but after that Jerry would have to move out.
"
I was under the impression that if you're not married, anything you bring to the party is yours for the keeping after it ends. Houses are slightly different if the other party can prove that they made substantial contributions to it (and ironing and cooking don't count - actual real regular finacial contributions).
So, if the house is in your name, you could even argue that she's entitled to nothing at all. The most she should be able to get is half the equity max as far as I'm aware.
The point is - the guy is not married! I'm sure the people responding above are confused about this. The government/press are forever going on about "common-law" wives not having any legal rights whatsoever.
I quote "
What about the family home ? What is the effect in practical terms? Let's take a fictitious couple, call them Jerry and Mick and give them two young children and a family home to live in. If they were married, on divorce, Jerry would be likely to get enough of a share in the equity in their house to buy or rent a property of her own that she could live in with the children.
If Jerry and Mick were not married Jerry would have to prove that she was entitled to a share in the property. She may be able to do this if:
(a) She contributed to the purchase price when the property was bought. Although if for example she only provided a 10% deposit that could mean she would only be entitled to 10% of the net equity.
(b) She can show that Mick promised her that the house would be theirs jointly if she made some contribution. It is best if she can show that Mick put his promise in writing, although it does not have to be a formal document and love letters can be enough. The contribution must be fairly significant, for example paying for the shopping and the curtains would possibly not be enough. In those circumstances all Jerry may entitled to under the law is the curtains:
(c) Even if there is nothing in writing from Mick, Jerry may still be able to claim a share of the house. She would have to show that she relied on Mick's promise and as a result made a significant contribution to what she thought was going to be her home too, for example, paying for a new conservatory or carrying out some hard physical labour like getting out a sledge hammer and doing some serious refurbishment to the house. Decorating and giving up a career to look after the children, even if it is a lucrative modelling career, is unlikely to be enough.
So if Mick and Jerry were not married and Jerry had never laid eyes on a sledge hammer or paid for a conservatory it could mean that after many years of living with Mick and bringing up their children she would have much less to show for her years of commitment and hard work than if she and Mick had been married. Jerry might be able to persuade Mick or a court that she should live in the house with the children until the children were grown up, but after that Jerry would have to move out.
"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post