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

zzzLazyDaisy

Sorry if I have missed this - but is the house held as tenants in common in equal shares, or in specified shares?

If the shares are not specified to be 41/44 (or whatever) then the formula for division of net proceeds of sale is 50/50

It isn't about what's 'fair' it is about what the legal and beneficial ownership is.

Dx

ValHaller

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Sorry if I have missed this - but is the house held as tenants in common in equal shares, or in specified shares?

If the shares are not specified to be 41/44 (or whatever) then the formula for division of net proceeds of sale is 50/50

It isn't about what's 'fair' it is about what the legal and beneficial ownership is.

Dx

You would like to think it is about legal and beneficial ownership, but as I see it, the difference between 41/44 or 50/50 is quite insignificant compared to OP's initial understanding of what was fair and compared to the inducement the ex is (apparently) offering OP in order to extract her equity.

LannieDuck is right, the ex has worked out how the game works, but OP has not. And as long as OP does not let this get as far as a court hearing, 50/50 need never be discussed - all that matters is the amount of cash to pass one way or another for the ex to get her equity out of the property.

The only weakness of how the ex is playing her hand is that the OP has not quite worked out how it works - and the ex actually needs him to understand.

mrginge

You only need to read posts #2 and #3 to see that there is too much emotion clouding the OPs judgement

getmore4less

I wonder if the offer is not a bluff(and the OP knows it) as daddy is prepapred to throw money at this.

Wonder what the background to the split is?

ValHaller

getmore4less wrote: »

I wonder if the offer is not a bluff(and the OP knows it) as daddy is prepapred to through money at this.

Wonder what the background to the split is?

:eek: Hmm. If daddy was upset, I doubt he would be paying over the odds, but it is worth a thought. I would say he wants closure and his daughter off the deeds quickly so she can move on.

LannieDuck

ValHaller wrote: »

:eek: Hmm. If daddy was upset, I doubt he would be paying over the odds, but it is worth a thought. I would say he wants closure and his daughter off the deeds quickly so she can move on.

I know I used the phrasing 'call her bluff' in an earlier post, but I think there's every chance that it will turn out not to be a bluff at all. The ex's family will finance the buy-out, then put the house on the market and go for a quick sale to recoup as much as possible.

I don't think ex would go in with such an attractive offer, and then refuse to budge, if she wasn't prepared to see it through.

Thrugelmir

getmore4less wrote: »

I wonder if the offer is not a bluff(and the OP knows it) as daddy is prepapred to throw money at this.

Faced with an obstructive counter party. Formalising the matter first in writing. Is a major plus. As any further negativety and staliing tactics just adds weight to the argument. With equity in the property any claim for costs ( of the entire action) would most likely be awarded.

Datolite

I reckon you just offer 32k and see what they say.

ValHaller

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Faced with an obstructive counter party. Formalising the matter first in writing. Is a major plus. As any further negativety and staliing tactics just adds weight to the argument. With equity in the property any claim for costs ( of the entire action) would most likely be awarded.

Only if OP lets it go to court.

OP perhaps approached this question from the wrong angle eg "What are my rights?" (paraphrasing) and "What will happen if it goes to court?" But OP is faced with ex and daddy who are fairly sophisticated in this.

The right question is "What do ex and daddy want?". Is it for daughter to be off the deeds and free ASAP? Is it for OP to be dislocated from his home as vengeance (albeit with more than his fair share)? Or what?

Once this is known, OP can plan the best way to meet his objective of staying in the house without this needing to go to court.

notrippedoff

Getmore 4 less
True and I’m surprised she hasn’t discussed us both renting it out as the rental profit would be quite good. We would probably take £300 each a month, albeit with tax obligations.


Bitsandpieces
I’m starting to agree with what you are saying. If they’d offer me 40k I’d have to seriously consider it.


VallHaller
Thanks for the calcs. I spoke to the family this weekend and discussed 31k to be told it was not high enough. By framing it open market terms it makes the offer look far more reasonable in my opinion.


LannieDuck
That’s exactly what I think it happening.

If however I was to offer £32,600 and framed it as in the example given my ValHaller above then my offer would only be consistent with her offer for my share. Although I didn’t want to go this high I can raise the funds so this is a realistic possibility if I decided I’d run to £32,600. In this case would a judge see me as being unreasonable, as I am only matching their offer to me? If it’s them that want to sell and I have matched their offer then how would I be unreasonable?


Vall Haller

ValHaller wrote: »

I agree with this analysis. Going to court should be avoided.

OP could consider that there is value in not moving (no buying costs, no upheaval) which would make it worth upping his offer if he wishes to assure his peace and quiet.

This exactly. If I can see value in not moving then I can build that into my offer. But looking at the figures going any higher than 32,600 would be too overly generous. The bluff may have to be called but then again I have nothing in writing and they put a 24 deadline on the offer which expired. The only things in writing are an offer to buy me out for 31k and an offer to sell at 37k. They remain open to me I believe.
The ex has said to me and I have said to her that we both want a fair outcome so regardless of declaration of trusts etc she has said nothing about trying to get 50/50 out, she acknowledges I put in 2.5k more. She even admits that we should consider selling costs. The issue remains on the value. She stating it’s worth 225k, what we bought it for in 2007. Her offer to sell to me at 37 is basically her 41k less selling costs, ie a value of 225k.


Mrginge
Not sure which bits you mean? I’m not overly happy about the way they are playing it and feel its unfair to expect me to sell up when I have funds to buy her out at a fair value. I am trying to remain objective on this, I just want to pay a fair price.


Getmore4less
I think it’s a bluff but I know that her family could probably go through with it if they felt they had no other option. I also know that they could go higher than offering me 35k if they truly believed it was worth what we paid for it.
Background to split is got together young, remained together 7 years grew apart. No cheating, no violence, no major issues tbh. We grew tired of one another lifestyles really.


ValHaller – Yes I believe Daddys main priority to have her off deeds and get closure.


Lannie Duck
I could see that scenario happening.


Thrugelmir
They have not made the offer in writing. Was made verbally, I was told I had 24 hours and told non-negotiable, which I didn’t think was very reasonable really. Only offer in writing is 31k to buy my share and 37k to sell me her share.


Datolite
Unfortunately father has stated that’s not enough.


Vall Haller
I (possibly wrongly) think you are over estimating the family but I could be wrong, they have never struck me as being particularly sophisticated with business, legal or financial matters. I agree however that understanding what they want is a key objective.
I did approach this with a ‘what would happen in court’ question. I need to try and understand if the scenario would sound reasonable to a judge. I don’t want to back down and pay more than is fair if I don’t have to. I also don’t want to be bullied out of my home where I am happy.