PLEASE HELP urgent advice required regarding property and benefits.

HappyMJ

The problem is you have equity in the property which by the sounds of it exceeds the amount of capital you are allowed to have. It doesn't matter if you didn't make the payments you stayed home to look after the children and have a right to the equity. Proving you don't have any equity is going to be a nightmare. He'll have to buy your share or sell.

lindsey3uk

I think the £50,000 is actually nowhere near that, on talking to the solicitor I think it is more like £18,000 at the moment, he said he had completed on a property in the same block. If I sell or he finds a way to sell and I take the equity where do I then stand? Do I live on that money for as long as possible? What happens when it runs out etc?

bloolagoon

lindsey3uk wrote: »

I think the £50,000 is actually nowhere near that, on talking to the solicitor I think it is more like £18,000 at the moment, he said he had completed on a property in the same block. If I sell or he finds a way to sell and I take the equity where do I then stand? Do I live on that money for as long as possible? What happens when it runs out etc?

You still get CTC and CB. You live off that until under £16,000 then it slides down with other benefits. Are you sure it's why they stopped your benefits as you had initially told them. Not wanting to frighten you but you mentioned he collects your DD for school and is there a lot, is there a chance that they think you still live together? Or did they say explicitly that this was why. If so I'd be asking them why they allowed it initially as you could have addressed this ages ago if you knew.

epitome

bloolagoon wrote: »

As you are married you are entitled to at least 50% unless you had a deed of trust drawn up. You rented it out and therefore when married both got the income etc. Many mothers don't work but during a divorce they are entitled even if not on the deeds.

It is a myth that under UK law each party is allowed 50% of assets. I don't know all the facts but it is to be decided by a court, and I guess they go by things such as how much you contributed to the marriage and the assest (eg mortgage payments) and how the seperation has or will affect you. There is no guarantee on 50% each.

Perhaps OP does not want to take half of the house from her ex (it certainly sounds like this is the case) she may feel that it is his house and she would not dream of taking any of it from him. Just like any other asset they have had like her car, his car, his guitar, his record collection etc.

epitome

bloolagoon wrote: »

If so I'd be asking them why they allowed it initially as you could have addressed this ages ago if you knew.

Just guessing but it could be they allowed a year, for example for the proerty to be sold or disregarded, but now its not sold and a year later, they need to take a new decision.

bloolagoon

epitome wrote: »

It is a myth that under UK law each party is allowed 50% of assets. I don't know all the facts but it is to be decided by a court, and I guess they go by things such as how much you contributed to the marriage and the assest (eg mortgage payments) and how the seperation has or will affect you. There is no guarantee on 50% each.

Perhaps OP does not want to take half of the house from her ex (it certainly sounds like this is the case) she may feel that it is his house and she would not dream of taking any of it from him. Just like any other asset they have had like her car, his car, his guitar, his record collection etc.

If OP was wanting to do this she would have just removed her name. She said she wanted the equity for her children and it's why they bought the house to give to the children. Although no guarantee of 50% it was bought during the marriage and he's now in a better financial position as he worked and she raised children. Generally courts wouldn't decide less favourably just because they stayed home.

bloolagoon

epitome wrote: »

Just guessing but it could be they allowed a year, for example for the proerty to be sold or disregarded, but now its not sold and a year later, they need to take a new decision.

I thought that but it's not a year, OP said July. Surely they'd have given advanced warning or explained when granting it. It's putting her in an awkward position as she clearly didn't think it was an issue and could have perhaps made other alternatives.

lindsey3uk

I certainly would have gotten this sorted a long time ago had I thought this was an issue. I have been upfront with absolutely everything from day one. I declared the property an d my interest in it which is why I think...why now?? Indeed I do not wish to take the property off of my ex. I don't want to leave him in a position where he can no longer afford to live there. This would certainly not benefit my children in any way. For all his faults he's a great dad and I will do what I can to make sure he can live near by. Selling or remortgaging the house will mean he can no longer afford to live in this area, as I said the property is a studio flat and he stretches himself to pay the mortgage. If he lost the property he would have to live with parents and they live a good half hour away.

I have tried to just remove my name but have been told by the mortgage company I cannot do that as he would have to refinance it in his name which is where they told me to get a solicitor who then refused to be a part of it. I have asked a few and all had the same attitude.

I had absolutely no warning of this at all. I got a letter on Wednesday, I called them and they told me it was because of the interest in the property he lives in, the money I was due to receive on Friday was never issued. I of course would have got this sorted long ago if I thought it was a problem.

Thanks you for your replies so far I really appreciate you taking the time xx

lindsey3uk

Just to add, I don't want to take the money out of the flat to give to my children. Id rather it stayed there and I trust it will be theirs when the time comes. My point is if I am forced to sell I will have to use the money to live on as will he. If I was able to just sign it over to him I know the money would still be there but I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

bloolagoon

lindsey3uk wrote: »

I certainly would have gotten this sorted a long time ago had I thought this was an issue. I have been upfront with absolutely everything from day one. I declared the property an d my interest in it which is why I think...why now?? Indeed I do not wish to take the property off of my ex. I don't want to leave him in a position where he can no longer afford to live there. This would certainly not benefit my children in any way. For all his faults he's a great dad and I will do what I can to make sure he can live near by. Selling or remortgaging the house will mean he can no longer afford to live in this area, as I said the property is a studio flat and he stretches himself to pay the mortgage. If he lost the property he would have to live with parents and they live a good half hour away.

I have tried to just remove my name but have been told by the mortgage company I cannot do that as he would have to refinance it in his name which is where they told me to get a solicitor who then refused to be a part of it. I have asked a few and all had the same attitude.

I had absolutely no warning of this at all. I got a letter on Wednesday, I called them and they told me it was because of the interest in the property he lives in, the money I was due to receive on Friday was never issued. I of course would have got this sorted long ago if I thought it was a problem.

Thanks you for your replies so far I really appreciate you taking the time xx

I know I remembered your thread (so had a quick glance), it's unfair that they changed now as you were completely upfront. I think most solicitors would not advise you giving money away for obvious reasons. I would ask them what changed.