House ownership issue - any advice?

Jhoney_2

fluffnutter wrote: »

I completely agree. She's incredibly manipulative. They'd talked about buying somewhere else to rent out anyway so she suggested he do this, then she move out for a while to 'get her head straight'. In return for this new house she'd transfer ownership of House A. He thought it was a temporary split because this was how it was couched. Obviously once she'd got not one, but two, houses, any talk of a reconciliation fell by the wayside.

Why he didn't walk (run) away at the point and use his remaining funds to buy himself a place is beyond me. But like I say, he's in love and she's very clever. He's a fool, but he's a nice fool and he doesn't deserve this.

But surely the BTL should have at least been in joint names?- albeit apparently still just his money!

Her head was as clear and cold as ice...

Simon has to take responsibilty for his own actions by the way, it's no use saying she is this or that..he was there too. Love sick or fool, he was not passive in this situation and should take stock of himself as well.

Jhoney_2

nubbins wrote: »

Moral of the story, avoid Sharon at all costs!!

And maureen, before you know it you've rung up 118 twice.

fluffnutter

pyueck wrote: »

I wonder if Sharon's account is different, two sides to every story!

I know. I'm trying to be as neutral as possible. I know them both. Very well. I met Simon through Sharon. She's complicated, she has lots of redeeming features and she's very charming and great fun but in a relationship...? Wow. I'm pleased I'm not a fella who's fallen for her. She's very screwed up I think and uses financial security to make herself feel safe. She's also very bitter that she's never had children; all the fellas have ex wives and kids and she kind of thinks 'If I don't get the fairytale family, then I'm damned well getting a house out of it'.

fluffnutter

Jhoney wrote: »

But surely the BTL should have at least been in joint names?- albeit apparently still just his money!

Her head was as clear and cold as ice...

Simon has to take responsibilty for his own actions by the way, it's no use saying she is this or that..he was there too. Love sick or fool, he was not passive in this situation and should take stock of himself as well.

I want to shake some sense into him. Perhaps this is his lesson learnt but he's one of life's good guys and deserves some help, if help is available. Amazingly, he's not stupid. Not in the least. Just utterly blind when it comes to her. I think it's a form of madness I really do. Or perhaps she's manipulated and controlled him so much he's just not in his right mind.

Jhoney_2

fluffnutter wrote: »

Well, because Simon's a fool basically. She's demanding and machinating, a classic gold-digger (although I dislike that term as I think it's often used unfairly). He was in love, they talked about marriage, she wanted the house, he agreed to prevent a tantrum. We all make mistakes, just not usually of such financial impact.

He's bought her two houses. She's impressive. She's got a third fella on the go now and is in the process of trying to get him to buy her one too.

Wasn't being judgmental, it was from your post and used figuratively as i'm sure was how you intended it.

fluffnutter

No problem. I didn't think you were being judgemental.

TBagpuss

He may be able to make a cliam under the trust of Land and Appointment of trustees act - basicually he would be arguing that the intention was to create a trust whereby Hosue A was held by Sharon for Simon. The court would hear evidence from both of them, and can also look at their whole course of conduct, in order to determine what (if any) joint intentions there were about the ownership of the house.

His first port of call should be a solicitor with extensive experience in ToLATA cases

tea-bag

WOW Go Sharon!!

Jhoney_2

tea-bag wrote: »

WOW Go Sharon!!

Yes Go on now Go! Walk out the door! Don't turn around now...

Not even for Sharon Stone (can't think of any other Sharon atm) What a piece of work.