Deed of Trust - made under duress- is it legal?

FBaby

guruchelles wrote: »

Don't know if it helps, but I signed a Deed of Trust with my (then) husband and his mother (who had contributed some deposit). When we came to divorce my understanding of the deed of trust did come into account (ie, whether I knew what was going on). Turns out the conveyance (their family friend) vouched that I did know what was going on so the deed stood.

The judge did still manage to wangle things so that I got 50%, but there were three of us to share between.

But you were married, OP's friend wasn't and that makes all the difference and the reason why unmarried couple do deeds of trust.

OP, why is your friend trying to get more? The deed of trust wasn't unfair at all in the first place, so controlling or not, what difference does it make? Why would a judge award her more for something that was fair? They were not married, and that's it.

justme111

Fbaby , If they paid mortgage 50/50 for 5years not sure split 80/20 would be fair.

kmmr

It's been a long time since my legal studies, but I seem to recall that the standard for duress is very high.

Being pressured, or feeling like it may not have been a great idea isn't enough. It's not quite 'gun to the head', but not that far from it, and the court will take into account the situation at the time not any subsequent events. So she would have to prove the domestic violence was happening at the time, and he forced her to sign the document.

It might be a better idea to say she wasn't correctly advised rather than duress. If she didn't get independent advice there is a chance a judge may feel she didn't fully understand what she was signing. It sort of depends how complex the DoT is - if it's a single page saying '75%, 25%' it may be hard to argue she didn't understand the implications.

When my boyfriend (at the time) was looking to sign a DoT with me, my solicitor advised him to get independent advice, otherwise there was a risk the agreement could be disputed later if one party is significantly more informed, or in a more powerful position. IANAL, so I'm not sure if that is really correct, or just my solicitor being cautious.