Bank statements from 20 yrs ago

jaxwat

Yes Whitewing, he has a solicitor so maybe that'll be the route they go down. Just want to be doing something in the background to get all the paperwork we can to speed things up. Thanks for your advice.

Owain_Moneysaver

willo65 wrote: »

If it is a statement from the mortgage the bank should keep records 6 years after the mortgage was settled so if its still active or was paid off in the last 6 years then he may be able to get it. I know they will keep the original agreement for this length of time so would assume they will keep the transactions also.

The mortage co should still have a list of payments, but that will not necessarily show where the payments came from - and if he gave the cash to her, the mortgage statement will show that she paid the mortgage.

willo65

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

The mortage co should still have a list of payments, but that will not necessarily show where the payments came from - and if he gave the cash to her, the mortgage statement will show that she paid the mortgage.

Also having a bank statement showing the funds being withdrawn is not evidence the cash was given to her to pay the mortgage.

jaxwat

This is all true, thanks for your advice everyone.

Thrugelmir

The other party could argue that any cash paid constituted "rent". Whether this was used to pay the mortgage or not is not relevant. As I assume that what's being sought is a share of the properties value.

jaxwat

Good point Thrugelmir, yes you're right with the reason for doing this. 20+ years down the drain and what do you get at the end! Thanks again for all your help and advice, will see how things progress

jonesMUFCforever

It has occurred to me if OP cannot ascertain who paid what - the other side are unlikely to be able to do the same!

InsideInsurance

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

It has occurred to me if OP cannot ascertain who paid what - the other side are unlikely to be able to do the same!

But you then get into the area of "balance of probability". It sounds like the OP is claiming he paid all the mortgage for a property in someone elses name and therefore presumably post divorce is wanting a share of the property proportional to their investment into it.

With no evidence is the court going to believe that the guy paid it all given nothing is in his name or think that he probably paid something towards it but not all of it and so base settlement on that?

Of cause it also raises the question of why she wasnt working. If shes a housewife and raising the kids then she gets more of the share given her contribution to the home was simply non-monetary where as if she was simply a "lady that lunches" and did nothing towards the home he has a greater claim.

As to the OP - banks are not legally required to keep most data for anything more than 6 years. Since the Enron scandal where RBS got stung due to very old data that was found by auditors and yet could have legitimately been deleted years ago banks have become much tighter at their records management.

If the bank says they've not kept any old records then you dont have much to go on (though as said, it would only prove cash withdraws not what happened to the cash). You could try asking again as it could be that some historic stuff is sat on microfiche or other highly inefficient mediums and an old timer may remember the old processes to recover it but it could be that they've been efficient at destroying everything that was held in storage.

I know if a former client who I helped with their records management policy they found hundreds of thousands of boxes that had been in storage for a decade or more with no knowledge of what was in the boxes.... of a same we brought back, 4 contained nothing but tea bags

jaxwat

Jones - yes thats something that I guess would just come down to a decision on the day, but if you don't give it a go, then you don't get anything. I am sad for this guy who I know is so genuine as to give a stranger in the street the coat off his back. Yes they had a child together, I hadn't given the point that you make about her contribution being non-monetary any thought but I understand where you're coming from.

sabretoothtigger

I'd think they'd need to be married to extend ownership like that