I was supposed to be getting married in 6 months..

paulineb_2

Some people do have age gap relationships, a member of my family is with someone who is 15 years older than them. The scummy thing is cheating and cheating twice over and no it cant be nice seeing someone you loved with someone else, but the fact is, this girl is 18 years old and unless hes in a profession where he shouldnt be with this girl, such as teaching, if shes still at school, I dont think its wise to pick this apart.

If she had been 20 would it be less bad? 25? People can and do have age gap relationships and they work, its his cheating that makes him a rat bag.

aileth

Of course age gaps work in relationships, my grandparents had 23 years between them. I suppose the difference is this isn't about love conquering age, more like a bloke thinking with his wibbly bits and seeing an 18 year old conquest. Ugh!

paulineb_2

aileth wrote: »

Of course age gaps work in relationships, my grandparents had 23 years between them. I suppose the difference is this isn't about love conquering age, more like a bloke thinking with his wibbly bits and seeing an 18 year old conquest. Ugh!

The thing is, we know very little about this man. On the surface of things, it doesnt look good, hes apparently been cheating with two people.

But, I know someone who is 25 and has been with her partner who is twice her age, for a number of years and she has two kids to him.

Its very possible for people to fall in love young with someone who is much older. I dont think that makes someone a dirty old man.

Its the cheating in this scenario thats very wrong, he was getting married to someone else and hes knocking around with two other people behind her back.

The fact that these women think hes a good catch is mystifying, however, not everyone goes into relationships thinking long term or thinking very much at all.

The OP is better shot of him, thats very clear.

rpc

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I am not familiar with Scottish law but aside from some specific areas, i doubt it differs that much from English law with regard to base principles. I would submit that the civilian CAB advisor has misinformed you.

What you are missing is this bit:

OK, so he was sequestrated a few years ago

Ex is "bankrupt" and the trustee has the power to sell his share in the home. The legal interest in ex's share no longer belongs to ex (it would revert in the future, though if the trustee did nothing).

So the ex's name may be on the paperwork but the ex has no interest in the title to the property.

The trustee can sell their interest to the OP or her dad to totally remove ex from the equation. The only obligation on the trustee is to obtain a fair price.

I-Heart-Me

rpc wrote: »

What you are missing is this bit:


Ex is "bankrupt" and the trustee has the power to sell his share in the home. The legal interest in ex's share no longer belongs to ex (it would revert in the future, though if the trustee did nothing).

So the ex's name may be on the paperwork but the ex has no interest in the title to the property.

The trustee can sell their interest to the OP or her dad to totally remove ex from the equation. The only obligation on the trustee is to obtain a fair price.

The trustee can force the sale of the house and I don't want that as I want the opportunity to get the best out of the value. My dad being able to take it on would be great as I can sell, pay off off the debt thats in my name then half the rest with him. Then Im protected. Only thing is my dad is 57 and the mortgage is with NRAM...unlikely they will allow this. Not sure if they would transfer it all to me on my own? My dad would be happy with that also

rpc

I-Heart-Me wrote: »

The trustee can force the sale of the house and I don't want that as I want the opportunity to get the best out of the value.

While I have no direct experience, my understanding is that this is very very hard for a trustee to do. Certainly, if you were offering to buy it from the trustee and the alternative was to force an open market sale, I can't imagine a court ever granting an order for sale.

The trustee has an obligation to obtain the best price for the share, but also has an obligation not to interfere with your assets more than is absolutely necessary to satisfy the requirements of the sequestration.

Yorkie1

LandyAndy wrote: »

Stupid advice. Don't do this. While it is his house as well he can get a locksmith to break in and change the locks again. This is not the way to go.

I-Heart-Me wrote: »

OK, so he was sequestrated a few years ago so I jointly own our house with an accountancy company. My dad is going to pay the £5k to satisfy the accountancy & Bankrupcy Scotland and that will allow the house to be transferred into my dads name jointly with mine as long as the mortgage company agree.
Currently he is still on the joint mortgage.
I don't know what that means for the mortgage going forward?

I agree that you need specific advice but my provisional view is that he has a contractual obligation to pay money to the lender but has no legal ownership in the property any longer and therefore can be excluded.

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I am not familiar with Scottish law but aside from some specific areas, i doubt it differs that much from English law with regard to base principles.

May i refer you to The Trusts Of Land And Appointment Of Trustees Act 1996 ?

I have assisted a male in your ex partners position in litigation in which a high street solicitor sought to bring a case involving TOLATA and family law to force the male to leave the family home. It was a total bluff, he stayed,we won.

This Act does not apply in Scotland.

C_Mababejive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusts_of_Land_and_Appointment_of_Trustees_Act_1996

Yorkie1

C_Mababejive wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusts_of_Land_and_Appointment_of_Trustees_Act_1996

I prefer the original source, not Wikipedia. See s.27(3).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/47/section/27

(3)Subject to subsection (4), the provisions of this Act extend only to England and Wales.
(4)The repeal in section 30(2) of the M1Agriculture Act 1970 extends only to Northern Ireland.

rpc

Yorkie1 wrote: »

I agree that you need specific advice but my provisional view is that he has a contractual obligation to pay money to the lender but has no legal ownership in the property any longer and therefore can be excluded.

Legal advice is definitely needed here, but I think the contractual liability would be extinguished by the sequestration. The relationship between the lender, trustee and OP is one I always struggle to understand (the mortgage is secured but joint and there are other unsecured debts of the ex), but I think the mortgage obligation is now shared by the trustee and OP.

If the lender is satisfied that the mortgage debt can be passed to the OP alone (or jointly with dad), then all that is required is to remove the ex's equity for distribution among the creditors.

Perhaps someone has an inaccurate wikipedia link about a piece of English Law that can clarify this?