Help - Ex trying to force me out or pay more for her share

notanewuser

I'd suggest £31k as a final offer. Psychologically something with a "3" in front is going to be more appealing than a "2".

Just look at it as the cost of getting her out of your life!!

dodger1

Has the balance of the mortgage been reduced. If the mortgage was say £100,000 and now is down to £80,000 I guess she'd be entitled to half of the reduction.

getmore4less

You can't have it both ways. There is a tiny difference in invested capital.

Their offer of £35k is not enough for you but expect them to accept £27k

With you refusing their offer going to court could be a bad move if £35k is deemed acceptable

look up part36 offers.

mrginge

notrippedoff wrote: »

Yes I am doing a TOE I appreciate that but if I wasn't in the position to do a TOE we would have to sell on the open market and incur selling costs. So my offer to her is based on the reduced equity and half selling costs being removed from her initial investment. Why should she get more money from me than she would on the open market??



Appreciate the opinions and advice here guys, thanks

But you cant just add in extra costs that are not going to arise.
Why not say 'if we had to sell to ripoffquicksale.com they would knock 20k off tje price so you have to take 10k of that hit'
It doesnt make sense and is unfair.

The reason that she should get more than if it was on the open market is because YOU are also getting more than if it was on the open market.

martinsurrey

mrginge wrote: »

But you cant just add in extra costs that are not going to arise.
Why not say 'if we had to sell to ripoffquicksale.com they would knock 20k off tje price so you have to take 10k of that hit'
It doesnt make sense and is unfair.

The reason that she should get more than if it was on the open market is because YOU are also getting more than if it was on the open market.

He is in no way getting more; he is just factoring in the future costs he WILL incur in selling the asset they bought together, now.

In order to fully cash out this deal there WILL be selling costs and there WILL be legal fees, by doing a TOE all you are doing is postponing these.

It’s only right that she pays for the privilege of getting rid of a property without having to deal with EA’s!

You may say, ‘but he gets to keep the house’ but he will have in fact paid fully for it and so deserves it.

She will have bought half a house at OM value+ fees, and then ‘sold’ half at OM value + fees, so she gets what she deserves.

Stick your ground, be reasonable and no judge will give her costs, but you may be awarded costs if she is deemed to be wasting the courts time.

bris

A court would look at the whole situation and take all the facts into consideration before forcing you to sell. In your case if you have made a fair offer to buy her out then the court would look favorably at your offer and dismiss the case. Courts only want to force a sale when the other party stubbornly refuse to cooperate and their is no alternative before making someone homeless.
If your offer is fair taking all the shares and valuation into consideration then you have nothing to worry about.

mrginge

martinsurrey wrote: »

He is in no way getting more; he is just factoring in the future costs he WILL incur in selling the asset they bought together, now.

In order to fully cash out this deal there WILL be selling costs and there WILL be legal fees, by doing a TOE all you are doing is postponing these.

It’s only right that she pays for the privilege of getting rid of a property without having to deal with EA’s!

You may say, ‘but he gets to keep the house’ but he will have in fact paid fully for it and so deserves it.

She will have bought half a house at OM value+ fees, and then ‘sold’ half at OM value + fees, so she gets what she deserves.

Stick your ground, be reasonable and no judge will give her costs, but you may be awarded costs if she is deemed to be wasting the courts time.

That is ridiculous.

ValHaller

mrginge wrote: »

But you cant just add in extra costs that are not going to arise.

Ultimately there must be a disposal.

• Either there is a TOE to OP and OP will ultimately dispose.
• Or there is an immediate disposal.

In the latter case, the costs of disposal will be shared between them both. In the former case, unless OP's ex bears half the notional costs of disposal, she will have got her share without having to pay any of the costs of disposal. And OP will ultimately bear the full cost of disposal.

Conclusion: Whether there is a TOE or an immediate disposal, OP's ex should bear half the costs of a disposal.

girleight@

Hmm she's offering you 35k to sell to her but you're offering her 20k. I don't think you're going to come across as particularly reasonable.
Whoever stays in the house saves the cost of buying a new house so I don't see why she should pay half the cost of selling unless you're actually selling it!

mrginge

ValHaller wrote: »

Ultimately there must be a disposal.

• Either there is a TOE to OP and OP will ultimately dispose.
• Or there is an immediate disposal.

In the latter case, the costs of disposal will be shared between them both. In the former case, unless OP's ex bears half the notional costs of disposal, she will have got her share without having to pay any of the costs of disposal. And OP will ultimately bear the full cost of disposal.

Conclusion: Whether there is a TOE or an immediate disposal, OP's ex should bear half the costs of a disposal.

Ok. So perhaps the op should clarify. Are we talking about 8k to SELL the house, or is it 8k to sell it and for him to buy another.

If it is the former then clearly that cost would need breaking down and she should have opportunity to dispute it. After all, you can flog a house for less than a grand if you put the effort in.

If it is the latter, then we are not talking about disposal. Perhaps in that case the ex should be charging the op for the costs that she WILL incur in buying a new house.