My Ex Wife is saying that will wish to stay in FMH for next 15 Years.

We have been separated for over a year but still living in FMH together. She said she expects us to still live together for the best interests of our 3 Year old.

Current Equity in House 70K.
Neither of us have savings

Would it be likely a judge rule to let her stay in FMH for next 15 years when I cannot afford another house with no deposit as all equity in house?

If it is not practical to sell the property such that your wife and child could live elsewhere or it is difficult or impossible for your wife to get your name removed from the mortgage then, yes, it is possible that you might not be able to enforce a sale of the property for the next 15 years. Since there are all sorts of disadvantages to that type of arrangement in this case I think you can reasonably assume that a court would only do that if it felt it had no choice.

It is, of course, absurd of your wife to think it is reasonable to expect you to continue to live in the matrimonial home with her after a divorce because she thinks that is what would be best. Very few people could tolerate living like that for long and obviously it is not something your wife could compel you to do. For the sake of your own sanity you would be unwise even to contemplate it.

I have offered to buy her out or sell the property as she is not in a position to buy me out.

She says I am being unreasonable by trying to make her lose her home even though I have given plenty of options.

At the point of selling in 15 years she will be at an age where she is unable to obtain a new mortgage. Her mom has a large home with only her living there. She could have the option of moving there. Would the courts see this as a reasonable option?

>>I have offered to buy her out or sell the property as she is not in a position to buy me out.

Neither of those is reasonable. If you buy her out where would she and the child live and how would it be funded. Would it be reasonable for you to have a house but not her? And the same applies if it is sold. Not only would there be quite significant costs of sale incurred relative to the amount of equity involved but it is obvious from what you have said that you have a greater mortgage capacity than your wife,

>>Her mom has a large home with only her living there. She could have the option of moving there. Would the courts see this as a reasonable option?

Presumably you are not thinking of going to live with your mother but you expect your wife and child to do so?

And, before you go there, I hope you are not going to say that the child can live with you while her mother lives in a bedsit because I can tell you that is as unreasonable as all your other proposals.

What a court will be looking at here first and foremost is what is in the best interests of the child and in the absence of compelling and uncommon circumstances a child of this age would normally live with her mother if that is what the child's mother wants.

I am also the child's mother.

If the house is sold then I have the option of also moving in with my parents and I also want 50/50 custody so the child will be with me as much as she is with her other mother.

I am not in a much greater mortgage position but my dad has offered me the money to buy her out meaning I could keep the equity in the house. If I bought her out them she would have a deposit for a 2 bedroom house in our area.

I would never expect her to move to a bedsit of any kind. I just cant be connected to her in this way for 15 years as she is very controlling hence the divorce.

If you are also the child's mother then the exact details matter because it is easy to envisage that the child may have a different biological relationship with each of you or perhaps none. And in the case of none it is also easy to see that there could be various formal arrangements in place. These details may well determine with whom the child will live. And in turn that could have an impact upon whether either of you has a greater call upon the house.