Ex wifes claim over property

claireh11_2

It doesnt matter that we were only actually married for 2 years, our long term relationship was 11 years so in the eyes of the law as we lived together and raised a child thats deemed the true term of our " marriage"

There isnt a massive amount of equity no but whatever there is I am still entitled to a share. He has until this friday to decide if he wants to cooperate in mediation or I will take it to court

claireh11_2

I also dont want to go for spousal maintenance, would rather have a clean break and have nothing more to do with him other than him seeing our son

Jenny_Tall

Sounds like a job for Jeremy Kyle!

No seriously, in answer to your question, his previous wife has no recall on his assets.

Treevo

claireh11 wrote: »

It doesnt matter that we were only actually married for 2 years, our long term relationship was 11 years so in the eyes of the law as we lived together and raised a child thats deemed the true term of our " marriage"

There isnt a massive amount of equity no but whatever there is I am still entitled to a share. He has until this friday to decide if he wants to cooperate in mediation or I will take it to court

I don't know who's told you that but it's not the case at all. I think you need good legal advice before making threats about going to court because you may find yourself with a large bill and nothing to show for it.

paddedjohn

You married in 2008 and left him in 2010, whats to stop him saying that you abandoned him?

Padstow

Treevo wrote: »

I don't know who's told you that but it's not the case at all. I think you need good legal advice before making threats about going to court because you may find yourself with a large bill and nothing to show for it.

Where cohabitation leads to marriage, the whole term is counted as if they were married, so she is correct.
Your second sentence I totally agree with Treevo, even winning a couple of grand isn't worth the time and aggro.

RAS

Padstow wrote: »

Where cohabitation leads to marriage, the whole term is counted as if they were married, so she is correct.

And as such will be entitled to 50% or more of the assets of the marriage.

If the house was bought in 2002 then it is likely that there is substantial equity to which she is entitled.

The OP needs to see a solicitor urgently (not least as Legal Aid for divorce ends on March 31 and she may well still be able to get some support before then.

C_Mababejive

Who would get married eh?

Some men are just like pieces of fresh meat being fought over my competing lionesses.

The old argument as to his purtpose for buying the house is up for debate. You say he bought it as a family home, he will say he bought it as his home and you were merely granted his kind permission to live there even though you had no legal tenure.

Did you pay him rent or did you live there free of charge during your period of occupation?

Until and if this goes to court, he has no real obligation to engage with you or any solicitor you may choose to hire. It could get expensive.

Have a good read on TOLATA. As you will see,it is a very contentious and potentially expensive area in which to litigate.

As a start,i'd say his only initial real responsibility to to provide for his child.

Treevo

Padstow wrote: »

Where cohabitation leads to marriage, the whole term is counted as if they were married, so she is correct.
Your second sentence I totally agree with Treevo, even winning a couple of grand isn't worth the time and aggro.

That's too simplistic. It may be counted as one term but equally it may not. It depends on the individual case and the judge in question.

Treevo

RAS wrote: »

And as such will be entitled to 50% or more of the assets of the marriage.

If the house was bought in 2002 then it is likely that there is substantial equity to which she is entitled.

The OP needs to see a solicitor urgently (not least as Legal Aid for divorce ends on March 31 and she may well still be able to get some support before then.

Not necessarily. I do the hope the OP doesn't take your words as gospel. Especially as you're giving advice based in the opposite of what the OP has said. There isn't much equity anyway.