Repairs/Maintenance to house

Vel

I'm looking for some advice on how the cost of repairs/maintenance to a house should be dealt with following a relationship breakup.

I was with my partner for 13 years, not married. We have 3 children and a house together. We agreed that the priority would be to keep the children in the family home until they finished their education. As such I live in the house with the children and we each pay 50% of the mortgage.

However we can't agree on how the essential maintenance/repair costs are to be split. My argument is that he owns 50% and it is to his advantage/disadvantage that the house is maintained in good condition. If we were to sell the house eventually and I have paid for the majority of the repairs then I don't see how he would be entitled to 50% profit from a sale for a house that he had not contributed to maintaining.

He argues that he would eventually like to buy a house and he can't afford to maintain two houses and as such he does not want to commit to any kind of agreement when it comes to maintenance. I feel that as he already owns a home, he needs to ensure that he can cover all associated costs relating to it and that if he can't do that then he is not in a position to buy another house.

As it stands, the financial agreement we have come to means that we both have the same 'spare' amount of money available to us per month when all bills/expenses have been paid, so I just would not be in a position to cover any house related repairs by myself.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. I am on the waiting list for Flac but my partner has access to money from his mum which he is using to meet a solicitor this week to get advice so I feel quite worried and scared and on the 'back foot' so to speak

Victor

Vel wrote: »

I'm looking for some advice

We can't give legal advice here. But do speak to your solicitor.

I think all the parties are entitled to be housed. If you have your own income, comparable to his, then it might be the situation that he is only liable to house (including maintaining the property) the children, not you. The implication being that you pay the majority (your share and your liability to the children's housing), but not all, of the house maintenance. However, such matters are complicated and as I said, speak to your solicitor.

I'm not sure that you can take his mother's money into account.

TeaBagMania

It’s great that you guys have been able to agree on a scenario that works for both of you (for the most part) I hope he comes to his senses and agrees to help maintain the home as it will be a drop in the bucket as opposed to getting legal and courts involved

TheChizler

Four people generating wear and tear in the house, he's responsible for 1.5 of them?

Vel

TheChizler wrote: »

Four people generating wear and tear in the house, he's responsible for 1.5 of them?

I'm not talking about general wear and tear. I have just for instance painted the house myself as it hadn't been done so in over 8 years and was looking decidedly shabby and I wouldn't dream of considering asking him to contribute.

That's why I referred to it as essential maintenance. For example, the reason this moved from a hypothetical discussion for us was that it was discovered that there was some dodgy wiring in the kitchen. One of the electrical sockets was burnt out and the electrician deemed it to be 'dangerous' I didn't have enough money to cover it at the time and my ex refused to contribute anything (despite his kids living in what could have been a 'dangerous' situation) so the electrician actually did the job for me and is allowing me to pay him back when I have the money because he felt it was too dangerous to leave.

I know I can't seek legal advice here but I am just wondering if anyone has any direct experience of this. I appreciate that he isn't living here but at the end of the day he owns 50% of it and if we ever sell, how does that work in terms of profits to be divided, if he hasn't contributed 50% to any essential maintenance.

FortySeven

You're getting half the profit too. You're also living there for half the outlay while I assume he has to pay rent somewhere. Legally I'm sure you'll be able to squeeze it out of him. Morally? I'm going to hold my tongue on that one.

Chemical Byrne

I feel that as he already owns a home,

This bit stuck out to me and shocked me. He doesn't own a home. He owns 50% stake in a *house* that is formerly his home which you have now taken from him.
And I'm flabbergasted to hear you state that it is you who is on the back foot!
As an unmarried mother who retains the family home your are in fact on the pigs back!!

I'd be interested to know how both of ye can have the same disposable income every month despite him paying mortgage AND bearing all the costs associated with running a second house?

Anyway, my opinion on it is that this is wear and tear maintenance brought about through use. He is no longer in the house so causes no wear to the fixtures. My personal opinion on this is that you'd be the one to bear the majority of this particular cost. But I'm many would be more than thrilled to use maintenance payments as a stick to beat and already beaten partner in the event of dividing up the proceeds of sale of the house.

Vel

I was reluctant to post this as I knew there would be people sweeping in with assumptions that as the woman in the situation I am trying to milk the man for all he is worth, which is absolutely not the case!

All I am trying to do is ascertain how the scenario might play out. If I am not entitled to 50% for essential maintenance then so be it but if I am then I very much intend to try to get it.

You are somewhat correct in your assumption - yes he is renting somewhere but no he is not paying for it himself.

I have never been in a situation like this before, don't have any friends who do and unlike him do not have access to funds for solicitors so was hoping for real life experience type advice rather than moral judgements!

Have you any advice to give FortySeven - maybe you've been through it from the other side?

Chemical Byrne

Has it ever been done where the parents rotate occupancy of the house periodically? Like the wife would live there for 6months (or whatever) and husband elsewhere, and then for the second 6months they swap over. The kids would stay living there 100% of the time.

My blood pressure spikes when I see this craic of the man being the losers time and time again and quite often its the woman is an absolute dragon wagon.

Vel

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

This bit stuck out to me and shocked me. He doesn't own a home. He owns 50% stake in a *house* that is formerly his home which you have now taken from him.

I haven't taken the home from him. We both agreed that it was in the best interest of the children for me to stay in the home with them. He chose to leave the home.

And I'm flabbergasted to hear you state that it is you who is on the back foot!

Never stated I was on the back foot. I'm very thankful that my children get to stay in the family home as the separation has badly affected them and the thought of them having to leave the family home, well that would kill both myself and my ex.

As an unmarried mother who retains the family home your are in fact on the pigs back!!

Why the reference to unmarried mother? What has that got to do with anything. I work and financially contribute to living in the home and bringing up my children, as well as being their primary carer.

I'd be interested to know how both of ye can have the same disposable income every month despite him paying mortgage AND bearing all the costs associated with running a second house?

Our financial arrangement is none of your business but I can assure you that it was agreed amicably between us and within the next couple of years he will have access to a large amount of money which will alter the situation radically, without our financial agreement being altered

Anyway, my opinion on it is that this is wear and tear maintenance brought about through use. He is no longer in the house so causes no wear to the fixtures. My personal opinion on this is that you'd be the one to bear the majority of this particular cost. But I'm many would be more than thrilled to use maintenance payments as a stick to beat and already beaten partner in the event of dividing up the proceeds of sale of the house.

How do you know he is an already beaten partner? You have no basis for that statement!

Anyway thanks for your input

Chemical Byrne

I wouldn't blame him for moving out.....

Vel

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Has it ever been done where the parents rotate occupancy of the house periodically? Like the wife would live there for 6months (or whatever) and husband elsewhere, and then for the second 6months they swap over. The kids would stay living there 100% of the time.

I believe this is common in Europe where the couple rent an apartment or house and rotate between the two. It is something we discussed but my ex didn't want to do it and I don't know how practical or stable for the kids it would be

My blood pressure spikes when I see this craic of the man being the losers time and time again and quite often its the woman is an absolute dragon wagon.

I'm just not sure how you have reached this conclusion based on the information I have provided. I can assure you that my ex is in a fundamentally better financial position than I ever will be. You seem quite bitter about the subject. I can only presume you have your own 'dragon wagon' to contend with :rolleyes:

hullaballoo

Moderator: Chemical Byrne, that's a red card and a thread ban. Do not post in this thread again.

IITYWYBMAD

I don't think it's unreasonable of you to request some contribution towards essential maintenance on an on-going basis, but I do think it may be viewed unfairly if you were to ask for everything to be split 50/50.

I'm sure, given both your and your partners mature approach to this, that you can come to some arrangement. My advice would be to discuss and agree, and should he be getting legal advice, ask him to have the agreement written up and co-signed. Like most of these situations, the real pain will come when your children have flown the nest and one or both of you decide to sell the house.

Good luck.

FortySeven

Vel wrote: »

I was reluctant to post this as I knew there would be people sweeping in with assumptions that as the woman in the situation I am trying to milk the man for all he is worth, which is absolutely not the case!

All I am trying to do is ascertain how the scenario might play out. If I am not entitled to 50% for essential maintenance then so be it but if I am then I very much intend to try to get it.

You are somewhat correct in your assumption - yes he is renting somewhere but no he is not paying for it himself.

I have never been in a situation like this before, don't have any friends who do and unlike him do not have access to funds for solicitors so was hoping for real life experience type advice rather than moral judgements!

Have you any advice to give FortySeven - maybe you've been through it from the other side?

In the middle of it. I retained the house after she tried every trick in the book. She made the mistake of abducting the children to Poland and so got short shrift from the judge.

I am now paying 100% of the mortgage that she is 50% owner of and currently shouldering all costs and providing my own skills and labour to renovate the house. It is still cheaper than renting so I will not give it up. I also think it is important for the children to have a permanent home as security. If I ever sell she will be entitled to half. I don't mind even though I now detest the woman. It's only money.

You just have to suck it up. You're living cheap (as am I) and in my opinion will only antagonise the issue if you push forward with petty expenses. Look at what you would be paying for a comparable rental. You are lucky that you seem to have some kind of agreement in place, you do not want to face the bitterness that I am currently going through for the sake of a few hundred a year.

I would give both my arms for the situation you currently have. Namely the time you spend with your kids. I get to see mine (for now) for 3 hours a week and it breaks my heart. Bricks and mortar are not worth fighting over in my opinion.

Vel

Sorry to hear about your circumstances FortySeven. The only ones who lose out when there is such animosity are the kids. No matter how bad things became with my ex and I, I would never ever ever restrict the amount of time they spend with him. And believe me, we are not on good terms right now!

I couldn't be further from the money grabbing stereotype that another poster tried to pin on me. Honestly, if I could support my kids on my own I would and would instead get him to put money in an education fund or something like that. But the reality is that I gave up on career progression to raise the kids (I do still work though and always have) and my ex has great career prospects going forward. All I want to do is try to secure my financial future just like he is trying to do.

We have a huge mortgage with a really long term on it and when my kids move out there will be years left on it. I will, unless I meet a geriatric billionaire, never be in a position to buy him out, so it is likely I will end up 'losing' my home eventually. It is very far down the line and who knows what might happen, but I am a worrier.

I don't think it is fair to begrudge someone who is simply trying to secure their future and if that means that I am entitled to 50%/40% whatever towards house maintenance then I don't see why it would be wrong to take it. I would never want a situation where my ex is living in poverty to pay me as he is my kid's father at the end of the day, but he is very unlikely to be in financial distress if he were to have to give me money towards the house. Whether the law discriminates against the men in these situations is another story and another topic for discussion separate to what I am trying to work out.

FortySeven

I do understand where you are coming from Vel and I applaud your stance on the children's access to their father. The correct way to go about this is to save receipts for any work done on the house and then when a sale is forced, ask for half of this expense to be taken from his share of the profits. That is the norm as far as I understand it.

I too do not wish to get into the rights and wrongs of this kind of situation. My own belief is not going to fit in with the outcome you want from this thread. You believe you are somehow entitled, a feminist ruled society has taught you this and I don't blame you for that. I do believe however that it is time for men to start pushing back as the current situation regarding these matters is so far removed from equal it is absurd.

Men deserve equality.

FreudianSlippers

FortySeven wrote: »

I do understand where you are coming from Vel and I applaud your stance on the children's access to their father. The correct way to go about this is to save receipts for any work done on the house and then when a sale is forced, ask for half of this expense to be taken from his share of the profits. That is the norm as far as I understand it.

I too do not wish to get into the rights and wrongs of this kind of situation. My own belief is not going to fit in with the outcome you want from this thread. You believe you are somehow entitled, a feminist ruled society has taught you this and I don't blame you for that. I do believe however that it is time for men to start pushing back as the current situation regarding these matters is so far removed from equal it is absurd.

Men deserve equality.

We're not here to tell you what to believe, but please don't do that to others either. Personal comments against other posters are not wanted.

MadDog76

I don't think 50% is fair considering he doesn't actually live in the house ............. the children would represent 75% of the "wear & tear" so maybe half of that would be fair?
Say 37.5% of any essential maintenance to the house with his input on who to use and what actually needs to be done??

Johnboy1951

How much of the following would apply in this case?

The male partner moves out and gets a place of his own.
Both agree that the children should have their primary
abode in the family's former home.
The man agrees to pay 50% of the mortgage to ensure
continuity of abode for the children.

That home requires regular maintenance.
The man's new home also requires regular maintenance.

The children's time is split between both parents.

The result is that there are two homes now.
The man pays fully for his new home.

I am unsure why he should have to pay any maintenance
on his previous home.

jimmycrackcorm

Op, I think you should consider some over-arching aspects. Your ex already has the additional expense of providing his own rent because he cannot live in your joint house so you win already in not having to have to pay that extra. If you consider that repainting also as an example, it's likely that you are the only one to benefit from that until some distant time in the future when the house may have to be sold and repainted to achieve the sale.

Unless it's essential repairs such as a hole in the roof or the heating system gone then I think you'd only get short shrift trying to pursue it.

Chemical Byrne

Do many separated out broken up couples manage to remain living in their joint home but live largely separate lives like housemates?
I wonder is this feasible provided relations are reasonably cordial?
I suppose the house would need to have enough space to facilitate it.
Avoid issues like the ops and children would have access to both parents.....

I lived with an ex for roughly 3 months after breaking up with her. Our of necessity rather than choice though.

Johnboy1951

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Do many separated out broken up couples manage to remain living in their joint home but live largely separate lives like housemates?
I wonder is this feasible provided relations are reasonably cordial?
I suppose the house would need to have enough space to facilitate it.
Avoid issues like the ops and children would have access to both parents.....

I lived with an ex for roughly 3 months after breaking up with her. Our of necessity rather than choice though.

Some 'non-separated' couples live like that!

athtrasna

I did it for 18 months. It's possible. We had a very amicable split, but that's far from typical.

Chemical Byrne

If I was ever to be in that situation I would make an effort to live together as housemates like that as it solves a lot of hassle.
But it also causes the problem of making it very difficult to move on to a new relationship. But I imagine a lot of people who are separated with kids haven't really much appetite for getting in another relationship with all the compactions they entail.

hullaballoo

Moderator: Chemical Byrne banned for two weeks for posting in a thread in which a thread ban was issued.

Vel

Thanks for all of the contributions. I did post in the legal discussion thread specifically looking for more legal based answers (I know I can't seek legal advice) as opposed to whether people think it is morally wrong or not to seek such a contribution from him. And to be clear, I am referring to essential maintenance such as the heating packing in, a ceiling collapsing etc. - a situation where it would be unsafe or not feasible to continue to live in the property unless the work was done to repair it - not a contribution towards new carpets, painting, cleaning windows etc.

Sure, he doesn't live in the house any more but he still owns 50% of it and if we sell it and it comes out of negative equity he will be entitled to any profit and it is important for me to know how that would be dealt with in the context of him contributing or not to the essential maintenance.

Anyway, those of you who feel strongly that men get trampled on in this kind of situation can rest assured that in this particular case his mum flew over at the weekend so they could go to a solicitor together yesterday, so I await hearing from him while I wait on the Flac list for my advice.

I certainly don't begrudge him trying to secure his financial future so I don't get why others would have a problem with me trying to do the same. The anger emanating from some of the posters is palpable, with one who can't keep away despite being banned from the thread!

TheChizler

Good point actually, structural stuff and things that are more part of the building should be 50:50 as it's a 50:50 ownership. Maybe treat it like landlord/tenants would? Anything the landlord would normally pay for (structural, major plumbing and electrical work, anything long term basically) go 50:50 on, and things reasonable long-term tenants would pay for (wear and tear, new non-basic carpets/painting, minor electrical and plumbing) go 63:37 on.

MadDog76

Vel wrote: »

Sure, he doesn't live in the house any more but he still owns 50% of it and if we sell it and it comes out of negative equity he will be entitled to any profit and it is important for me to know how that would be dealt with in the context of him contributing or not to the essential maintenance.

I think the issue some people have is the 50% aspect, he does get 50% of any potential profit from the sale of the house in the distant future but, in the meantime, you get to use and enjoy the house 100% with the added (significant) bonus of having your children live with you.

If we were to over-simplify it we could say it's like you getting to temporarily keep/use a television you both jointly own until you sell it but, in the meantime, you want him to pay half the TV licence fee every year until it is sold ........ it doesn't seem fair somehow?

I suggested you negotiate with him and discuss a reasonable compromise of 37.5% which, on reflection, is still probably too high a figure ......... maybe 25% would sound more appealing to him?
The reason I suggest you negotiate with him directly, as opposed to going to Court, is because I doubt the Court will award you any more money towards the upkeep of the house itself.
Upon leaving Court Fathers (generally) complain that they don't get enough access/rights to their children and Mothers (generally) claim that they aren't awarded enough maintenance monies .......... 50% of anything is rare upon leaving Court to be honest.

FortySeven

TheChizler wrote: »

Good point actually, structural stuff and things that are more part of the building should be 50:50 as it's a 50:50 ownership. Maybe treat it like landlord/tenants would? Anything the landlord would normally pay for (structural, major plumbing and electrical work, anything long term basically) go 50:50 on, and things reasonable long-term tenants would pay for (wear and tear, new non-basic carpets/painting, minor electrical and plumbing) go 63:37 on.

You are missing the point. She has the use of the property and he does not. This is a benefit to herself. He is not her landlord.

Ok. I told you the legal bit. You keep receipts for money put in and when you later force him to sell it is taken from his share.

Alternatively you can go to court to have maintenance payments made official with housing repairs included.

Personally I think he is right to seek legal advice to nip this in the bud before it keeps escalating. You seem jealous of his parents affluence and want a bit of it. Probably get banned for this as the truth is deemed indecent these days but what you really need is a chisel. With a chisel you can gouge a good bit. Possibly even his fillings from his teeth for melting.

You got a house half price. He didn't. You won already. Leave the poor bloke alone and pay your own way

TheChizler

FortySeven wrote: »

You are missing the point. She has the use of the property and he does not. This is a benefit to herself. He is not her landlord.

I get that, I'm only talking about 50:50 for things that preserve the value of the property, luxuries, like TVs and anything non standard should take account of who actually lives there.

MadDog76

TheChizler wrote: »

Good point actually, structural stuff and things that are more part of the building should be 50:50 as it's a 50:50 ownership. Maybe treat it like landlord/tenants would? Anything the landlord would normally pay for (structural, major plumbing and electrical work, anything long term basically) go 50:50 on, and things reasonable long-term tenants would pay for (wear and tear, new non-basic carpets/painting, minor electrical and plumbing) go 63:37 on.

The problem with that analogy is a Landlord would get monthly rent payments, a portion of which he could set-aside for any essential maintenance, as well as 100% of any profit from the future sale of the house.

This situation is a difficult one, as they usually are ........ the Op wants to be treated fairly, as does her ex, but going to Court may end up with them both feeling hard done by, ie. the Judge awards the Op 20% instead of 50% meaning neither party are entirely happy resulting in more bitterness and resentment in the "relationship" which could have an adverse effect on the children involved.

Negotiation and compromise from both parties is a more desirable option in my opinion.

Mr. Incognito

1. You are not married. This is critical information most posters have missed.

2. You are living in a House. He is not. You are responsible for 100% of the upkeep of that house. As the person in occupation of it.

3. He is living in a House. You are not. Do you believe you are responsible for 50% of the Maintenance of that house?

4. His 50% contribution to his previous home is for his children. This is by agreement between you. It is not formalised. You were not married. You have no right to maintenance. If he doesnt agree to 50% of repairs your previous agreement is irrelevant.

MadDog76

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

1. You are not married. This is critical information most posters have missed.

2. You are living in a House. He is not. You are responsible for 100% of the upkeep of that house. As the person in occupation of it.

3. He is living in a House. You are not. Do you believe you are responsible for 50% of the Maintenance of that house?

4. His 50% contribution to his previous home is for his children. This is by agreement between you. It is not formalised. You were not married. You have no right to maintenance. If he doesnt agree to 50% of repairs your previous agreement is irrelevant.

I missed that myself, didn't realise they were not actually married ....... this puts them both at a disadvantage ........ he has less automatic rights regarding his children and she is less likely to receive more maintenance money from him.

Informal negotiation and agreement is the way to go here .........

MadDog76

On another point, could the Ex force the Op to sell up now?

If the Ex is not happy to pay (or can't afford to pay) towards essential maintenance could he, out of frustration, say "f*ck it, we're selling the house and we'll deal with access rights and maintenance money in court!"??

If so, that could leave the Op in a very vulnerable position.

Mr. Incognito

MadDog76 wrote: »

On another point, could the Ex force the Op to sell up now?

If the Ex is not happy to pay (or can't afford to pay) towards essential maintenance could he, out of frustration, say "f*ck it, we're selling the house and we'll deal with access rights and maintenance money in court!"??

If so, that could leave the Op in a very vulnerable position.

No. Its a joint asset that they both own. He can seek to sue her for the cost. A court would not order the sale of a family home in these circumstances.

MadDog76

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

No. Its a joint asset that they both own. He can seek to sue her for the cost. A court would not order the sale of a family home in these circumstances.

So if he becomes frustrated with the situation he could sue her and force her to pay him for half of the house?

What happens if she can't pay??

Actually, could he decide he now wants to live in the house full-time???

I guess what I'm asking is, should the Op leave sleeping dogs ........ ????

Mr. Incognito

MadDog76 wrote: »

So if he becomes frustrated with the situation he could sue her and force her to pay him for half of the house?

What happens if she can't pay??

Actually, could he decide he now wants to live in the house full-time???

I guess what I'm asking is, should the Op leave sleeping dogs ........ ????

No. I think she would have a good claim in estoppel to say that he should maintain the status quo.

I cant see any action suing his ex who has custody of his three kids ending well for him.

God. People are such children.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

FortySeven has been asked not to post in this thread any more, so please do not reply to him.

Vel

I am fighting back the tears reading this as I just feel so overwhelmed and scared. I just don't know where I stand and I'm worried about my ability to keep a roof over my kid's heads in the future. I have no contingency, back up, nothing if something came up with regard to the house. I know most people don't either, be they a married couple or single parent but being on my own and trying to work all these things out is terrifying.

I don't see how either of us are being 'children'

No matter how bad things are between us he would never deliberately try to get at me by making me move out of the house. The people that hurts at the end of the day are the kids, and he would never do that to them. We have agreed that they will stay in the house and we will make that work financially to the best of our ability.

Equally, I would never, ever stop him seeing them even if he stopped contributing a single penny towards them or didn't stick to custody arrangements. That would be for him to deal with himself and justify to them as they got older and understood the situation. But for as long as they want to see him, I will never stop them.

Neither of us want to go to court (does anyone ever?) Neither of us are trying to get back at each other over things that went on in the past but both of us are determined to ensure that each is getting a 'fair deal'.

If I'm not entitled to a penny for maintenance of house then so be it but I am certainly going to try to find out where we stand legally on the situation.

I think I will have to find the funds and at least have one session with a family law solicitor