Ex-husband has re-married, has he fallen into the re-marriage trap re our house?

Guest101

silvercar wrote: »

His morals have already been shown to be questionable. Now he is in a situation where he wants out of this mortgage, he is the one that wants to move on, OP on the other hand would be quite happy to continue living in the property. It is therefore him that should be accommodating. - He also continued paying the mortgage. Which im sure the OP found thoroughly useful. If the OP wants to live there, remortgage and buy him out. He has an asset and wants to liquidate it. Which has nothing to do with an affair 10 years ago.

If (and I accept it is not definite) he has also behaved illegally and committed mortgage fraud, his negotiating power is severely weakened as he would risk the lender requiring at the very least that he remove himself from this mortgage or that they call in his new mortgage. He could even face prosecution. -You accept it's not definite?! So it's quite likely? on what basis? His negotiating power is not weakened in the slightest. He bought with his new wife. Could've bought for cash. The Wife's income could be high. You are clutching at straws.

Sorry but this is just ridiculous. You've presumed that he's commited fraud. (which is difficult when the bank runs credit checks). The amount outstanding is unlikely to be high and the built up equity is very high. On top of which he could've bought for cash.

It in no way weakens his ownership of an asset!

duchy

It sounds like the OP has had a good deal - half mortgage on a property that has shot up in value . Had the house been sold at the time of the split they'd likely have had to buy something a lot less desirable for the same mortgage payment.

Fifty fifty split sounds fair -although I'm still not clear if it is the division of the equity or the valuation of the property that the ex is objecting to.

fairy_lights

silvercar wrote: »

His morals have already been shown to be questionable. Now he is in a situation where he wants out of this mortgage, he is the one that wants to move on, OP on the other hand would be quite happy to continue living in the property. It is therefore him that should be accommodating.

He has been paying half of the mortgage on a property he doesn't live in for ten years. I would say that's very accommodating of him. OP must have known the day would come when he would want out.

suki1964

How has he behaved illegally? It's not illegal to have two residential mortgages Indeed the first mortgage is joint and one of the joint owners still lives there so it's perfectly legal for him to have another mortgage

As for the affordability checks, they only came in last year and this time frame is at any time in the past ten years

rpc

You seem to be mixing up two different things.

Can he, as a basic generalisation, commence proceedings to get a court ordered settlement (i.e. a consent order)? No.

Can he, being part owner of a property, force the sale of that property? Yes.

System

This is a relevant excerpt from the re-marriage trap from David Lee Solicitors, as quoted by Brighton belle above (post 21)

"Financial claims arising from a marital breakdown are not automatically dismissed when the Divorce is made final. Even when parties think there is nothing to sort out, problems can arise in the future. A party may believe that their share in a property is safe, if it remains in their joint names with their former Spouse. This may not necessarily be true. If one of the Spouses remarries, they could find themselves prevented from making an Application but leaving the other former Spouse with the ability to make that Application. In such a case, the former Spouse who has the power to make that Application has a significant advantage. That party can demand a significantly better deal from the division of the marital assets, than could have been expected if both former Spouses had identical rights."

It would seem that the former husband cannot 'make an application', having re-married, and thereby having lost some of his rights, so the advantage appears to lie with the OP. Surely it can't be that simple? He is still owner of half the house because he has continued to pay half the mortgage... It's not as if he stopped paying for the past 10 years.

Guest101

uselessaver wrote: »

This is a relevant excerpt from the re-marriage trap from David Lee Solicitors, as quoted by Brighton belle above (post 21)

"Financial claims arising from a marital breakdown are not automatically dismissed when the Divorce is made final. Even when parties think there is nothing to sort out, problems can arise in the future. A party may believe that their share in a property is safe, if it remains in their joint names with their former Spouse. This may not necessarily be true. If one of the Spouses remarries, they could find themselves prevented from making an Application but leaving the other former Spouse with the ability to make that Application. In such a case, the former Spouse who has the power to make that Application has a significant advantage. That party can demand a significantly better deal from the division of the marital assets, than could have been expected if both former Spouses had identical rights."

It would seem that the former husband cannot 'make an application', having re-married, and thereby having lost some of his rights, so the advantage appears to lie with the OP. Surely it can't be that simple? He is still owner of half the house because he has continued to pay half the mortgage... It's not as if he stopped paying for the past 10 years.

Exactly, so nothing stopping him moving straight back in, without any notice. With his new wife.

Somehow I think the mind of the other party will become very focused, very quickly.

FBaby

I'm confused as to where this thread has evolved. OP has no issue with her ex wanting to remove himself from the deeds and getting his share of the equity. The issue is that they are not agreeing on what that share should be.

Unfortunately we do not know why he is not accepting the three quotes provided.

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

I'm confused as to where this thread has evolved. OP has no issue with her ex wanting to remove himself from the deeds and getting his share of the equity. The issue is that they are not agreeing on what that share should be.

Unfortunately we do not know why he is not accepting the three quotes provided.

Sort of agree

I think it's pertinent to the situation where the power balance fluctuates.

Primrose

I wonder if your ex realises that he will have to pay capital gains tax on his proceeds if he takes his share of the equity out of your jointly owned property because it is no longer his prime property of residence. And the more money he gets out of it, the more Capital Gains Tax he will have to pay.