My Partners Ex husband cost us £30K help please

Bossyboots

The final court order in the divorce proceedings should protect against any claim regardless of whether property was actually transferred.

That is of course provided there was a final ancillary order and that it prevented either party from claiming against the other in the future. If this is not the case, then they could be right in claiming against the property.

The OR would not be privy to the matrimonial papers and will only know that the ex is still registered on the property. They will need sight of the court order.

With a court order in place, the changing of the names on the deeds should have been straightforward and cheap regardless of the negative equity so I am rather surprised this was not done.

Apple_2

Just thought about it and realise what's happened.

The ex went bankrupt. At that point his equity is 'acquired' by the OR. It had no value but still belonged to the OR.

A few years later, the divorce happened. The ex's equity share in the house was part of the divorce pot but in reality wasn't. The ex couldn't give away what he didn't own - the equity 'belonged' to the OR. The ex took credit in the divorce for an asset he no longer owned.

Fast forward, and the 50% equity now has value. The OR has a set number of years in which to realise this value. The rules have changed - it's a shorter period now than it used to be. But you're probably stuck with the old rules. I do not know what the time frame is.

The OP sounds like they understand the process and accept a sum is payable to buy back the equity. They seemed ok with the 2k. It's the OR fees etc which amount to 28k which they want to challenge.

Start with the site mentioned above. You need a good Insolvency Practitioner. This is specialised. Most lawyers won't be experienced with this.

Good Luck

apples101

Apple wrote:

Just thought about it and realise what's happened.

The ex went bankrupt. At that point his equity is 'acquired' by the OR. It had no value but still belonged to the OR.

A few years later, the divorce happened. The ex's equity share in the house was part of the divorce pot but in reality wasn't. The ex couldn't give away what he didn't own - the equity 'belonged' to the OR. The ex took credit in the divorce for an asset he no longer owned.

Fast forward, and the 50% equity now has value. The OR has a set number of years in which to realise this value. The rules have changed - it's a shorter period now than it used to be. But you're probably stuck with the old rules. I do not know what the time frame is.

The OP sounds like they understand the process and accept a sum is payable to buy back the equity. They seemed ok with the 2k. It's the OR fees etc which amount to 28k which they want to challenge.

Start with the site mentioned above. You need a good Insolvency Practitioner. This is specialised. Most lawyers won't be experienced with this.

Good Luck

Thanks Apple,

yes thats how it happend (sorry it wasnt clear) i am stuck on the old rules and the fees were inexcess of £28k i think.

i will try posting a more detailed description on the forum you suggested this evening.

apples101

Hi apple,

trying to register on the forum nut not receiving the email. Are you aware of any issues on the site?

Bossyboots

It has just occurred to me that it might be possible to reopen the ancillary part of the divorce proceedings on the basis that a material fact wasn't disclosed and particularly as that has led to a financial loss. If he has no money or assets now though there is probably no point but it might be worth considering. It is a very rare thing to do and needs permission of the court but one of the grounds for reopening a case is where a substantial non-disclosure comes to light and that is certainly the case here.

apples101

Bossyboots wrote:

It has just occurred to me that it might be possible to reopen the ancillary part of the divorce proceedings on the basis that a material fact wasn't disclosed and particularly as that has led to a financial loss. If he has no money or assets now though there is probably no point but it might be worth considering. It is a very rare thing to do and needs permission of the court but one of the grounds for reopening a case is where a substantial non-disclosure comes to light and that is certainly the case here.

BB,

that may be a good idea, however i think he has played a clever game.... the house he and his current family reside in is owned by his brother, and they rent it off him..... he has a company car, and pays very little in CSA payments even after they re assessed his income.

rog2

It does not say much for the record keeping of the court or the solicitor if the majority of the file has been 'lost'. I wonder what the law would have to say about their request, under these circumstances. Who knows what other relevant information was contained in the missing part of the file?
I would advise seeing a solicitor - possibly a 'free' half hour or referral by CAB.
The whole case looks a bit 'dodgy'.

Apple_2

apples101

Hello. No probs with that site as far as I'm aware. I've just gone into it. Maybe allow 24 hours for e-mail verification.