Husband's ex wife wanting more money

FBaby

so he only 'gifted' her 45%.

ONLY???? I think many pwcs would feel quite grateful to have been gifted only 45% of a property, especially when she was the one who wanted out of the relationship.

FBaby

For the benefit of his son he relinquished his 45%.

Oh really! Did she sign a paper to say that when he turned 18, she would sell the house and give him the 45% in equity? I very much doubt it. The reality is that the property is hers to dispose as she wishes and wasn't put into a trust to benefit the child only (unless of course OP has left such information out of her posts).

Rebecca01

FatVonD wrote: »

For the benefit of his son he relinquished his 45%.

Yes

and good point F baby about when the child turns 18.

paulineb_2

FatVonD wrote: »

No he HASN"T! She owned 50% of it anyway!

She was legally entitled to half. She could have bought his share out to stay in the house, I have no idea whether that would have been half of what was left on the mortgage or half of the value on the open market if it were sold.

But he hasnt asked for a penny from it and shes paid a tenth of the original value of what its worth and the house is 100 per cent hers?

You said she has taken on the remainder of the mortgage, 30 thousand pounds.

If you want to say because shes had to pay a 30 grand mortgage to get the house and because of that the house wasnt split 50/50 fair enough

But shes not having to pay him the 50 per cent share back that he would have been entitled to, so who got the better deal?

I think she did and that the OPs husband was more than generous in that respect.

FatVonD

FBaby wrote: »

ONLY???? I think many pwcs would feel quite grateful to have been gifted only 45% of a property, especially when she was the one who wanted out of the relationship.

Absolutely, I agree with you.

My issue is with people repeatedly stating that he paid for it as if that makes it 100% his.

paulineb_2

FatVonD wrote: »

For the benefit of his son he relinquished his 45%.

Which many people wouldnt have bothered their backside doing.

paulineb_2

FatVonD wrote: »

Absolutely, I agree with you.

My issue is with people repeatedly stating that he paid for it as if that makes it 100% his.

Not that it makes it 100 per cent his.

Just a recognition that someone paid into the property for a number of years and didnt decide to force the sale of it when they divorced in order to get the share they would have been legally entitled to.

But hes still being criticised for not doing enough for his son.

FatVonD

paulineb wrote: »

She was legally entitled to half.

Of course she was, it was hers!

paulineb wrote: »

shes paid a tenth of the original value of what its worth and the house is 100 per cent hers?

She has not paid one tenth of the value for a £300,000 house, she owned 45% of it anyway! She has got a £300,000 house for £165,00, which is still a great deal but get your facts straight!

Rebecca01

FatVonD wrote: »

Absolutely, I agree with you.

My issue is with people repeatedly stating that he paid for it as if that makes it 100% his.

I agree. It doesnt matter who does what in a marriage. Its a partnership.

Mojisola

FatVonD wrote: »

And he was only able to work to pay for it because she was a stay at home mum.

If that's true how is it that many single parents on here talk about going to work as well as raising their children?