Melts in your house, not in your hand

This story is not true. But, it’s based on one that is.

Also, this story tastes better if accompanied by M&Ms of any type. (Go get them, and don’t worry. I’ll wait.) Here goes:

M and M are happily married. That’s at least what we think from the outside. They are sweet, and many of us crave what they have.

There’s the annual Thanksgiving DiMMer celebration, which includes specialized napping pods where guests snooze within snuggly cocoons after the 3pm feast. There’s also the ChristMMas karaoke party, where one of the Ms dresses as Sonny and the other as Cher. They close out the night with a rousing rendition of But You’re Mine.

When they decide to become parents, adopting Peanut in 2019, the fun continues but becomes more wholesome.

M-1, aka Sonny, is a successful fashion designer. M-2, aka Cher, is more of a failed performer, having tried for years to break into off-off-off Broadway and FDNY Red, the never-happened companion series to NYPD Blue. New York can be unforgiving that way.

Out of nowhere — to us clueless bystanders — they decide to separate.

This situation is not only sad, as it represents the end of a truly beautiful chapter, it is complicated. First off, Peanut has to split time between parents. But M-1 and M-2, aka Sonny and Cher, are responsible, loving, doting parents and are committed to Peanut — even if they are no longer performing United We Stand together anymore.

The living situation is where things get tricky.

Sonny has gainful employment, cash-on-hand, extensive savings, a long and excellent credit history, and an appetite to move. Cher, meanwhile, is out of work — but manages childcare for Peanut — and has limited assets, means, or family support.

Further, the apartment the couple has shared — a Lower East Side co-op — is owned outright by Sonny, i.e., Cher is not on the stock and lease. This means that, legally, Cher is only an occupant within the apartment.

Without considering a mortgage or the respective financial (and human) contributions each makes to the household, let’s examine a few scenarios for Sonny and Cher:

A. Sonny Sells the Apartment, and Both Sonny and Cher Move

If Sonny elects to sell the existing apartment and split the proceeds with Cher, both parties move into new homes. This approach is feasible and creates a clean financial break, with each party receiving a defined share of the proceeds to deploy independently. It also eliminates the structural and governance hurdles — detailed in Scenario C — associated with remaining within the same co-op.

At the same time, this scenario introduces the greatest level of disruption for Peanut. Rather than maintaining one familiar home, Peanut transitions to two entirely new environments. The loss of continuity in residence and known surroundings is more pronounced than in the other options. Not to mention that Sonny and Cher have to be lucky in selling the current apartment and finding two separate units nearby within a similar timeframe.

B. Sonny Rents Off Premises, Cher Stays On Premises

If Sonny opts to rent elsewhere — meaning not in the same co-op — while Cher remains in the existing apartment, the path is the most immediate and flexible. If Sonny remains, optically, as the apartment shareholder, the divorcees avoid any scrutiny from the current co-op board (again, detailed in Scenario C).

The financial commitment upfront is lower, and it allows Sonny to establish a separate living arrangement without a long-term obligation. However, rental inventory in the immediate area is relatively limited, largely concentrated in newer developments such as those around Essex Crossing and a small number of nearby buildings. Plus, this transition also involves impermanence, requiring a longer-term and more stable solution for Peanut down the road.

C. Sonny Buys On Premises, Cher Stays On Premises

If Sonny chooses to purchase within the same co-op while Cher remains in the current unit, the primary advantage is continuity. This approach minimizes disruption for Peanut by preserving the existing environment, routines, and neighborhood ties, while also allowing Sonny to remain in close proximity.

At the same time, this scenario introduces structural complications within the co-op framework. As a shareholder, Sonny is not permitted to maintain two “primary” residences, which will raise concerns from the board.

To proceed, the existing apartment needs to be co-owned by Cher, who has to go on the stock and lease. (In a divorce situation, this is unlikely — even in an amicable one, such as this.) Otherwise, Sonny has to sublet the unit to Cher, who essentially loses occupancy rights. Cher then needs to apply as a subtenant and undergo board review and approval. Given Cher’s work situation and limited credit history, this approval process will be challenging.

D. Sonny Buys Off Premises, Cher Stays On Premises

If Sonny opts to purchase off premises while Cher remains in the existing apartment, they can potentially avoid the internal complications associated with owning multiple units within the same co-op. It also eliminates the need for board approval tied to subletting the current apartment and allows Sonny to pursue a broader range of purchase opportunities across within the neighborhood.

This flexibility can make it easier to structure both the transaction and any associated financing. It also preserves the long-term benefits of ownership (for Sonny, alone).

This scenario does introduce greater physical separation, which may lead to some disruption for Peanut due to changes in proximity and routine. Sonny’s mission is to find something appealing within a reasonable distance, i.e., within the same school district, to keep a semblance of continuity in place.

(By the way, I know we started out with M&Ms and wound up with Sonny & Cher, but I do these things For All Funkind. Anyway, The Beat Goes On.)

If this were you, what would you choose?