Wife trying force through sale of the family home

Pollycat

playaz wrote: »

None although the daughter is closer to himself than the mother, although I guess this won't matter so much with the divorce courts.

The daughter is an adult.

Assuming she is not dependent on her parents, it won't matter at all to the divorce courts.

You & your friend seem to have some incorrect understandings of things.

You've had lots of good advice on divorce, asset splitting etc on here.

I suggest your friend does this first:

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

I would suggest that your friend look at the Wikivorce website & forum for information about the process.

and then seeks legal advice.

pinkshoes

Personally I'd just sell and move on. Delaying the sale is just prolonging things.

Offer her 50% of the equity upon completion then move on and find new life.

duchy

playaz wrote: »

None although the daughter is closer to himself than the mother, although I guess this won't matter so much with the divorce courts.

I'm just feel for him, she has put him through a lot and I've no doubt a lot of debt too. Personally I don't think she should get half but then it isn't up to me.

The whole situation puts me off marriage altogether!?

Best not marry him then !!
Although he's either not very bright and not got legal advice on the situation or he's not telling you the truth about a divorce as there is no need to wait two years.

Why does he want to delay the house sale and prolong the whole thing? They have no children (children are only a concern if dependent -a twenty something daughter is of no interest or relevance) so surely sort out the legalities and be in a position to move on with life with his share of any equity in the house. The only reason I could see to delay the house sale (but not the divorce) would be if they are in negative equity.

I realize you're only getting one side of the story but he really needs to work out why he'd want to keep a house longer he can't afford to keep (assuming he doesn't want to/can't afford to buy her out). Not wanting to sell just because she does doesn't make much sense.

Presumably he puts no value on her contribution to the marriage -if she didn't pay as much as he did was this because she stayed home raising the daughter? If they both agree the marriage is over why shouldn't she beentitled to "her half" of the marital pot? Marriage is a partnership -He's obviously bitter but then perhaps if he didn't value her contribution maybe that's a clue as to why the marriage has failed. Divorces are rarely all one person's fault. She sounds quite sensible in thinking they should both be getting on with their lives and maybe as a .....friend -you should be encouraging him to look forward and not back too.

swampduck

When sorting the financials - it might be as well to include all debts whether they are his or hers from the residue of any house proceeds. Then he really can start with a clean slate.
There are always two sides to every story and no-one ever knows what truly goes on behind closed doors. Married people can be better actors than the professionals at times when it comes to presenting a public image.


Swampy

Padstow

RAS wrote: »

Hi

He can get a divorce on the grounds of breakdown NOW if he wishes providing she agrees to sign the divorce papers.

These can be downloaded here https://www.gov.uk/divorce/file-for-divorce

What he has to sort out is a financial settlement and clean breaK order. That means once she get her share, she cannot come back and ask for another bite at the cherry.

He can do the divorce bit himself by paying the court fees. He would be well advised to at least see a solicitor about the consent order and find out what they think she will get.

Contributions in are irrelevant; the basic assumption is 50% of all marital assets and debts to each party. That includes the house, pensions if they have large pension pots and any credit card debts that were run up supporting the family.

They are not interest in whose fault it is that the relationship failed.

If she gave up work to raise children, then she might get more than 50%. If he has taken out lots of debts to pay for extension etc, then she would get less of the house because he would get something towards paying those off.

I take it the BIB was a typo RAS, as you are usually knowledgeable on these matters.

It takes two to marry but unfortunately only one to end it. He doesn't need his wife's consent to divorce her.

If she is trying to sell the FMH, it can only be done either with his consent or by court order.

As others have advised OP, I'd stay well out of it. Listen by all means and murmur your sympathy, but then let it out of the other ear. You wouldn't believe the lies that are told in marital disputes, and yes in front of a Court too. Seems there is no such thing as perjury for family matters.

You've already been fed false information that he cannot divorce for two years. Stay out of it I say.

Tigsteroonie

Padstow wrote: »

It takes two to marry but unfortunately only one to end it. He doesn't need his wife's consent to divorce her.

To clarify - the only option for divorce without the spouse's consent is after five years' separation. All other options (unreasonable behaviour, adultery, two years' separation) require the signature of the other party.

Goldiegirl

She could force the sale of the property if she got a court order, which ordered the sale of the property.

However, this is expensive, and tends to be a last resort.

Why don't you, sorry your friend, get himself to a solicitor ASAP.

It sounds as if the wife is keen to move on, so I can't see why she wouldn't be agreeable to divorce.

There's no benefit in hanging on forever - get it sorted and move on with your, sorry his life.