need advice asap on house sale/divorce dispute

scatty73

She never mentioned the DOC, just asked him for a settlement figure, after working out some figures, he said 100k, which would leave her with 150k, I did question as to why she would ask for a figure from him because of the DOC, so he asked for a copy of it, which she sent through, along with the ancillery forms and a solicitors letter stating her offer to him of 25k (sorry not 18k as i first said) as she was taking her 200k and they would split the remainder 50/50.This is why he then said he would take the house off the market until a figure was reached as he cant go for another property until he knows how much deposit he can put down and mortgage to take out etc.
They were both living in the property until 5 weeks ago, she moved back to her parents

scatty73

I appreciate all of your replies and that he does need to speak to his solicitor, which he will do. I have also researched some laws, I just didnt know if it was advisable to take the house off the market or just refuse all offers? Also if anyone had dealt with DOC' and if they stood legally.
In answer to another question, he does have a pension and has been advised on what could happen with that.
Thanks again

caeler

You might wish to try here too:
http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/Divorce-Forum/

CloudCuckooLand

How much has he paid into the house in 5 years? Bearing the crash in mind £25k sounds pretty reasonable.

For him to think he should get £100k for 5 years of paying a mortgage, it must have been a huge mortgage in a location that didn't suffer from the house price crash.

£163k v £87k might be the result, if she has left herself open with a bad document.

In reply to MarsdenCuckoo's, "Logically, one partner cannot ask for a refund of their lump sum and then split the remainder pro-rata..... ", maybe not logically, which is why the document has been drawn up to try and protect the substantial investment.

A sort of pre-nuptual, if you like. Seems fair enough, if they both had their eyes open as the house was bought.

Fire_Fox

If the ex is not living in the property then she is liable for the mortgage and perhaps the buildings insurance but she isn't liable for any ongoing utility bills. Who is living in the house now, your partner, you?? Whoever lives there should be paying the bills, if it is empty then inform the relevant parties.

I wouldn't take the house off the market, the longer this drags on the more likely it is the mortgage will get defaulted on. Houses that are the subject of a dispute are more hassle for a buyer and potentially worth less: forget whether you can or cannot buy another house get this mess sorted first.

scatty73

To be honest, i dont know the answer to how much was paid in etc, his solicitor has told him 'needs' would be taken into consideration and the standard of living they had whilst married? so he checked out property prices in the area and had worked the figure out on his mortgage that he would need/deposit etc and wages and hers.He worked it out that she would need a mortgage of 50k and he would need one for 120k if they both went for the same size property, thats if they splkit 100k to him and 150k to her

scatty73

He is living in the property as she moved out 5 weeks ago, they carried on paying money into the house account as they have always done. He can afford to pay the mortgage himself, but then didnt know where he would stand with regards to the settlement figure dispute

greenface

little confused on figures
how much original mortgagae ££
how much is it on the market for now ££
she put down deposit of £200k he nothing
is the 2/3 1/3 split from the profits after all persons repaid (mortgage,bills fees etc)
your claiming £250k gain is that after all paid he wants £100k thats not 2/3 1/3

scatty73

sorry, 250k is what is left after everything has been paid. He said 100k after she asked for figure and working out a new mortgage etc, he also went a bit higher as a bargaining tool (possibly stupid i know) he is willing to walk away with 80k, its just thrown him now that she wants to go against the DOC that she had written up

zzzLazyDaisy

If she has no pension, she may be entitled to half his pension pot under the pesnion splitting laws. Often a deal is done whereby the r4ight to a share of the pension is forfeited in return for a greater share of the property. Perhaps that is where the differential lies?

As far as 'needs' is concerned, it isn't just about how big a mortgage each person will need, but also about their earning potential and ability to get/fund a mortgage. In other words the higher earner may be seen to not 'need' so much out of the house in order to provide a roof over his head because he has a higher income and is therefore better placed to obtain and fund a larger mortgage.

But as I said before - we can only guess at the answers. His solicitor has all the facts and will be able to advise him.