Debt between family member

WhiteHorse

traceyjf wrote: »

In 2005 My husbands sister gave him £13k to help pay of his ex wife. He couldnt get the money together himself.

It was a loan, not a gift.

She told him he could pay her back whenever he could get the money together.

No timescale set. No mention of additional charges in initial agreement.

Because she remortgaged to lend him the money he agreed that he would give her money monthly to cover the extra cost on her monthly mortgage payments.

There is no link between the remortage and the loan. What she does with the remortgage money is her business.

No paper work was ever signed between them both and nothing was said verbally between them to say exactly when she would get the money back in full.

Verbal agreement only. No fine detail as to repayment.

Yesterday my husband got home to a letter from her solicitor saying that unless he paid her the full amount that she paid him in 2005 by the 30th April she would be taking him to court.

Odd. What's the full story here?

She is asking for the 13k back dispite the fact he has paid £3500 over 5 years already. The reason she is saying he still owes her 13k is because she is on an interest only mortgage!

No agreement with regard to interest etc., so it's her problem.

My husband was never aware of the interest only mortgage when she gave him to money and if he was he would never have taken it in the first place.

So had those conditions been imposed at the outset, he would not have entered into the agreement.

Can she take him to court without there being a signed agreement/contract stating when she would get the money back?

Yes, absolutely. Verbal contracts are still binding. They're just very difficult to prove.

AND is he only paying the interest OR is the money he has been paying her for 5 years to come off the 13k?

No agreement to that term, so no additional payment.

However. The Court will examine the whole, take a very commonsense view, and may well impose a timescale and terms and conditions missing from the initial agreement.

nollag2006

deannatrois wrote: »

I agree that there have been some posts that have pointed out different viewpoints. The problem is that the OP and her OH seem to feel that there is NO NEED to make adjustments to pay more than token gesture payments. Thats why some of us are trying to point out that this isn't the only perspective. There have been posts pointing out how this could be done in a reasonably painless way.., but have met resistance. Its not judgment, its trying to get thru that perspectives may be incorrect and unhelpful to them (believe it or not) or their family and especially the SIL. That is what the forum is for. We are trying to help them resolve the situation rather than pat them on the back and leave the situation as it is.

That really is the nub of the problem. The OP, like so many others on this board, refuses to see that they have some responsibilty to other people.

The sister made a generous unsecured loan, and 5 YEARS LATER, would now like her money back.

How is this (a) unreasonable, and (b) a surprise ???

:eek: