Ex wifes claim over property

claireh11_2

My husband and I are going through a divorce now.

He was married previously, this divorce was finalised in oct 2002. They had no marital assets as were living in rented council property. He left, she still lives there.

He bought a house for us to move in to as a family in nov 2002, our son was born dec 2002. My name is not on the house but we lived there as a family with our son. We married in 2008, I left july 2010.

We had a relationship in separate houses (I privately rent and have our son with me) but I have since found out he has been adulterous and am now divorcing him.

He is reluctant to say the least to give me a penny from the house, I was a housewife raising his son. He now says that his first wife has a right to claim from the equity in the house and he has encouraged her to do so.

We were attending mediation until he refused to make full financial disclosure. He has been told he will have to do this whether its in mediation or to the courts when I request it. Im representing myself as much as possible to save on legal fees.

What I want to know is it it right she can claim now?

BitterAndTwisted

His wife has absolutely no claim to an asset he bought after their divorce was finalised IF there was a financial settlement agreed at the time! However, you do and you should fight tooth and nail for it.

claireh11_2

As far as I know there was no financial court agreement as they had no assets so to speak, all they agreed on was custody of their twins.

She is, if indeed its true, only acting on his request so he will have more than me but Im sure she has no claim to make?

Someone has said she would have had up to two years after the absolute to make a claim?

Kayalana99

Sounds strange. I am no expert but my personal belief would be that if she is entitled to some sort of financal payout it will be anything he had at the time of divorce. Anything earnt after that she would not be entitled to....but then did he not have a deposit when he brought the house? The house was brought 1month after the divorce and the money used may have been meant for a 50/50 spilt which is why he is saying his ex wife is entitled to some of the house - it would only be her 50% of his assets at time of divorce tho - not of the house itself.

I belive? Sorry I cant be more help

Sorry I have just looked at the dates again I thought it was all recent but he spilt from his ex nearly 10 years ago? I highly doubt she will be entitled to anything.

Good luck with your court case x

claireh11_2

He got one of the last 110% mortgages and had been living apart from her for 3 yrs in rented flats before that so no didnt use any monies they had together.

Kayalana99

I have no idea why he thinks she is entitled to anything then.

Maybe he is just making it up so you'll accept a lower payout then.

Maybe have a free half hour consult with a solicator? Im sure they could clear that up for you.

claireh11_2

Thanks, does anyone else have any ideas?

Seanymph

My understanding is that when they will have got divorced they will have had three parts to the final divorce.

One was the 'children's arrangement' a document that sets out what they will do over the children, his includes child maintenance.
One is the ending of the legal marriage.
One is the 'financial arrangement, this includes spousal maintenance'.

When I divorced I agreed a 'clean break agreement' with my husband. Which meant we drew our line in the sand there and then, and everything agreed was it finished. I claimed no spousal maintenance.

My MIL was advised by her solicitor to claim 'spousal maintenance' and NOT to agree a clean break - because even if she only got a pound a month from him, it gave her leave to return to the courts for an increase IF his circumstances changed.

In my case, MY circumstances were likely to be better than my exes, I wanted a clean break because I didn't want him coming back if I came into money.

In her case, it was more likely my exFIl would increase his wealth, and so her solicitor advised her leaving the door open so she could return to court and get the amount increased.

In your exes case it depends entirely upon his original divorce, what was agreed, and whether they had a clean break or whether he is paying spousal maintenance.

I don't believe it affects children's maintenance, because that's fairly set - it will only be if he pays/she was awarded an open spousal element of the original divorce rather than the clean break.

*usual disclaimers apply - I may be woolly around the edges, but I'm fairly sure that's the gist.

RAS

Claire

The house is an asset of the marriage regardless who owns it and as such, you are entitled to something in the region of 50% of the equity, possibly more.

If he failed to get a clean break financial settlement in 2002 (or hide assets which he should have shared with his ex) then she might be entitled something but it would be very small and would be allocated in addition to your entitlement (so he would end up with much less than 50%).

She would however have to argue this in the courts.

You starting point is probably 60-65% of the equity but you need to speak to a lawyer and get their advice. Do not settle for less than 50%.

If she is entitled to something, then he can pay her out of his apportionment. His problem not yours.

Spousal maintenance is making a bit of a come back but is not common place unless you put aside a career and need time to kick-start that or there is a massive disparity income potential

bluesnake

Take into account his private/company pension too, of he has one, but not sure how that works out with the ex wife.

Treevo

RAS wrote: »

Claire

The house is an asset of the marriage regardless who owns it and as such, you are entitled to something in the region of 50% of the equity, possibly more.

If he failed to get a clean break financial settlement in 2002 (or hide assets which he should have shared with his ex) then she might be entitled something but it would be very small and would be allocated in addition to your entitlement (so he would end up with much less than 50%).

She would however have to argue this in the courts.

You starting point is probably 60-65% of the equity but you need to speak to a lawyer and get their advice. Do not settle for less than 50%.

If she is entitled to something, then he can pay her out of his apportionment. His problem not yours.

Spousal maintenance is making a bit of a come back but is not common place unless you put aside a career and need time to kick-start that or there is a massive disparity income potential

This isn't really applicable given that this was a short marriage of only two years.

It doesn't sound like there's much equity at all, certainly not when you consider how far house prices fell during the time of the marriage.