Forcing a house sale.

Geordielad

xylophone wrote: »

As far as I can see, £10,000 would be more than fair -you walked out leaving her with a half finished house - she has paid the mortgage and made the house a home.

And a car worth 2000, every unopened wedding present, furniture, everything.

princeofpounds

You haven't answered the most important question. When you divorced, did you achieve a clean break financial settlement?

Geordielad

TBagpuss wrote: »

Did you have any kind of formal order at the time you got divorced? Has either of you remarried?

Both make a difference to how easy it would be for you apply for an order to force a sale if things got that far.

If you did seek to force a sale (or buy out) a court would have to try to consider what would be fair in all the circumstances - this would include looking not only what the house was worth at the time, but also other issues such as your respective incomes, whether you have or had pensions etc.

Another issue would be what the house was actually worth in it's half-renovated state. You say you invested around £14K from the previous house, but that the house was worth £25K. Presumably the difference was the mortgage she took on, so wouldn't the starting point be £7k, not £12,500?

I have remarried, I have a flat I rent out but no pension, my new wife has a good pension. We live ina flat with no mortgae

Thrugelmir

princeofpounds wrote: »

You haven't answered the most important question. When you divorced, did you achieve a clean break financial settlement?

Financial consent order should have been agreed by both parties.

TBagpuss

Did you have a financial order at the time you divorced?

As you have remarried, you will not be able to apply to the court under the divorce laws for a financial settlement, (your ex could still apply, assuming she has not remarried) you would have to go down the ToLATA route. A court will look at what the deeds say but can also look at the whole courses of conduct regarding ownership of the house, including the fact that you have apparently not pursued this before now.

ToLATA will only deal with the house - what your wife may have had in relation to other assets is irrelevant.

Given that it has been 22 years and during all that time you have contributed nothing a court might well take the view that there was an implied agreement between the two of you that you would not have any claim .

B aware that unlike proceedings in divorces, ToLATA claims follow standard civil law rules of court, including the principle that the loser normally pays the winners costs, so if you took her to court and the court decided that she should keep the house, you could end up paying her costs as well as your own.

rpc

TBagpuss wrote: »

Given that it has been 22 years and during all that time you have contributed nothing a court might well take the view that there was an implied agreement between the two of you that you would not have any claim .

But they could also infer that by remaining on the deeds there was agreement that OP still had an interest.

I wouldn't want to bet a penny sweet on the outcome of a court case, but I would give good odds that it will cost you significantly more than the £10k suggestion. Civil rules could lead to only one of you paying costs, but I wouldn't want to take the risk of it being me.

Personally, unless that 10k is critical, I would leave it be until either she wants to sell (she'll need your agreement) or one of you dies. You've left it this long, might as well leave it longer to avoid the hassle IMHO.

Geordielad

rpc wrote: »

But they could also infer that by remaining on the deeds there was agreement that OP still had an interest.

I wouldn't want to bet a penny sweet on the outcome of a court case, but I would give good odds that it will cost you significantly more than the £10k suggestion. Civil rules could lead to only one of you paying costs, but I wouldn't want to take the risk of it being me.

Personally, unless that 10k is critical, I would leave it be until either she wants to sell (she'll need your agreement) or one of you dies. You've left it this long, might as well leave it longer to avoid the hassle IMHO.

Probably the most sensible answer IV read, the divorce was a bitter as it gets, police, assaults on me, attempted assaults and threats on my now wife, she was unaware , as was I, that my name was on the deeds still. Until she tried to remortgage. She used threats and solicitors letters, but never takes her threats to the limit.
I think I may leave it in the knowledge that the fact I still have control in some way over her, annoys the !!!! out of her.

xylophone

I think I may leave it in the knowledge that the fact I still have control in some way over her, annoys the !!!! out of her.

Far better to make a clean break, accept a reasonable sum of money and get on with your life?

TBagpuss

Geordielad wrote: »

I think I may leave it in the knowledge that the fact I still have control in some way over her, annoys the !!!! out of her.

This is really disturbing. Why on earth did you need to control someone at all, let alone someone you have been divorced from for decades?

You say she was unaware , as was I, that my name was on the deeds still. - so both of you believed the house was in her name. You both made a mistake, now you should correct that mistake by putting the house into her name, the way you both thought it was to start with.

It is reasonable to expect her to pay the legal costs involved in transferring the property, including any costs for you to get your ID verified to sign the TR1.

But you have now answered the question which a court would ask, which is whether there was any agreement or joint understanding between you about the house. There was, you both understood it was hers, and if you take it to court the court will, given that evidence, make an order to implement that joint understanding - i.e. order the house to be transferred to her. In which case, as you would be considered to have 'lost' the case you would wind up paying her costs and your own, which could easily amount to £8-£10K

rpc

Geordielad wrote: »

she was unaware , as was I, that my name was on the deeds still. Until she tried to remortgage.

Pretty much kills off:

rpc wrote: »

But they could also infer that by remaining on the deeds there was agreement that OP still had an interest.

Geordielad wrote: »

I think I may leave it in the knowledge that the fact I still have control in some way over her, annoys the !!!! out of her.

Don't be an !!!! just for the sake of being an !!!!.

xylophone wrote: »

Far better to make a clean break, accept a reasonable sum of money and get on with your life?

Problem is that because OP remarried without wanting to properly tidy up his old marriage, he can't instigate proceedings for a consent order.

There won't be a clean break unless ex wife decides to go to court. As has pointed out, a civil claim could be made on the house to finalise that but it would be potentially risky and expensive.