exe's name on deeds can he claim 12yrs later

needhelpp_2

I find it interesting that a point is made about my mum being greedy. I'd have thought would be other way round. Giving an ex an sun of money which grown over 100% pretty good deal. I don't think issue should be about greed but what is right in this particular circumstance (obviously i cannot go into all details on here and just gave a brief).

I think that in spirit of the original agreement a perecentage based on 12 years ago would be more than fair.

McKneff

yes, your dads 20% has grown, but so has your mums 80%.

peachyprice

Well it's a bit late to be talking about doing what is right. Your mum should have done that 12 years ago. She knew she owed your dad 20% of the house value but chose not to give it to him. If she had it would have been earning interest for him.

A compromise would be to give him the amount he would have got 12 years ago plus statutory interest. Anything less is unfair to your father.

McKneff

needhelpp wrote: »

I find it interesting that a point is made about my mum being greedy. I'd have thought would be other way round. Giving an ex an sun of money which grown over 100% pretty good deal. I don't think issue should be about greed but what is right in this particular circumstance (obviously i cannot go into all details on here and just gave a brief).

I think that in spirit of the original agreement a perecentage based on 12 years ago would be more than fair.

You make no answer about the rent of 20% of the house that your mum should have paid to your dad.

Say going rate for rent is £600 a month rent over 12 years, 20% of that adds up to a tidy sum. That is £120 a month x 12 months x 12 years.

I think YOU are being unfair to your dad to be honest. You should be the mediator, they are your parents, you are in the middle of it all and trying to be fair to both of them.

BitterAndTwisted

Yep, four-fifths of a figure which has increased by 100% must be a tidy sum by now. If I'm wrong about your mother being greedy, then I don't think it's completely wrong to call her very unfair and completely unreasonable. How much would 20% of the local market-rent would be over the last twelve years?

The only advice I can offer you is to keep out of your parents' private affairs.

Debt_Free_Chick

needhelpp wrote: »

I find it interesting that a point is made about my mum being greedy. I'd have thought would be other way round. Giving an ex an sun of money which grown over 100% pretty good deal. I don't think issue should be about greed but what is right in this particular circumstance (obviously i cannot go into all details on here and just gave a brief).

I think that in spirit of the original agreement a perecentage based on 12 years ago would be more than fair.

But if he had received 20% 12 years ago, that could (would?) have been invested and be worth more now. Sticking to the 12 year old value does seem ... unfair.

And arguably he did contribute to the bills - and presumably the original property purchase - before the divorce. Indeed, the 20% of the property value is the balance of his share of the divorce settlement.

FATBALLZ

needhelpp wrote: »

hi

I will be visiting a solicitor but any early advice be appreciatef. My mum and dad divorced 30 yrs ago. He had written into deeds that will recieve 20% of house once mother remarried or children were no longer dependent.

Now 12 years after he should have claimed (when i was 18) he is demanding 20% of the house,he is now retiring and purposely waited using this like a pension . My issue is that he should have claimed 12yrs ago and i believe have a case to only give 20% of what the house was worth 12years ago.

Thoughts appreciated

How was this clause worded? If he gets 20% of the 'house', all he's asking for is 20% of the house, which is the same house, so can't see any argument to this. If it was 20% of the 'value of the house', you may have an angle.

Have to agree with the other poster that your mother is being greedy, would she be objecting if house prices hadn't doubled in the last 12 years? Let's be honest, no.

needhelpp_2

Ok thanks all. Although may not agree with all gives much to think about.

Gigglepig

If deeds say that he would have 20% then that is the agreement they made - and both of them have delayed the sale of the house at their peril.

I don't see how this would not be 20% of the current value, unless there was very specific wording otherwise.

Also, even though the sum 12 years ago may have been lower, some of that may be off-set by that you can buy less things now for a pound than you could 12 years ago (inflation).

There are also some potential benefits to the person who had the use of the house during these 12 years.

By delaying the sale, the person living in the house may
- have saved a lot of interest if they would have needed a mortgage for 20% 12 years ago
- if they would not have needed a mortgage to buy the other person out, they have still benefitted from being able to invest their cash in other ways over the last 12 years, earning interest etc
- if they were not able to buy out the other person / remortgage 12 years ago, they may have had the benefit of living in the property rather than downgrading or renting privately

prowla

So basically he owns 1/5th of the house.