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

Guest101

Primrose wrote: »

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.

I suspect he probably does.

Another reason to go along with him would be to avoid him moving in and claiming it as main residence for a year before selling.

silvercar

Guest101 wrote: »

I suspect he probably does.

Another reason to go along with him would be to avoid him moving in and claiming it as main residence for a year before selling.

You are exempt from CGT on the last 18 months of ownership in any case, so moving in would have no advantage as far as CGT is concerned.

Kynthia

Yes he could try to force a sale but a judge is unlikely to make you sell in order to release his share of the equity when he's turned down reasonable offers to buy him out.

As you were married and perhaps didn't finalise your finances during the divorce I think you should see a solicitor. This is to get advise about a whole financial settlement as there may be pension and other finance issues that could also be finalised. I would also suggest you get your evidence together, with proof of the valuations, local sold prices, the mortgage redemption amount (get this from your lender), and calculations showing how you've got to the amount you are offering. Then send this all in an offer letter to him and keep a copy of it all and proof of postage. Do you also have evidence that you can pay the amount you are offering, such as an agreement in princiole from the mortgage lender or cash savings?

How has he come to his figure, is it a different property value, does he want a bigger share of the equity or has he not deducted the oustanding mortgage amount?

TBagpuss

He is unlikely to be able to issue an application for a financial settlement following the divorce. He would however be able to issue a TOLATA application for a declaration as to his interest in the house and an order for sale if at that point you could not pay him.

This may not work to your advantage, however - a financial order in dovorce is made on the basis of what results in a fair settlement, and can take into account a whole range of factors, including the needs of each of you, your incomes, earning capacities etc, so a court could consider his interest in the house he owns with his current wife in considering what his needs are, for example.

If he makes a trust of land act application, the court will only look at the property which is the subject of the application, and they are not looking at what is fair in the context of the whole of the assets and the marriage, but at what the deeds say about how the property is owned, what if any previous agreements or understandings there have been between you, what contributions you each made and on what basis.

So it might be that he would be entitled to more, if it decided outside the framework of the divorce.

Mojisola

As the OP has been paying half the mortgage but also benefiting from living in the house while the ex has paid the same but has had to finance another home elsewhere, he could argue that he is entitled to more than 50% of the house's value.

Skintski

Mojisola wrote: »

As the OP has been paying half the mortgage but also benefiting from living in the house while the ex has paid the same but has had to finance another home elsewhere, he could argue that he is entitled to more than 50% of the house's value.

The fact that he has further assets in his own name should have no bearing on the joint ownership of this property.

It's really difficult to force a sale, let him take you to court. It will end up costing him financially. The only people who win by taking it to court are the solicitors. Neither the courts nor the mortgage companies are in the habit of making people homeless while they are getting their money.

fierystormcloud

Mojisola wrote: »

As the OP has been paying half the mortgage but also benefiting from living in the house while the ex has paid the same but has had to finance another home elsewhere, he could argue that he is entitled to more than 50% of the house's value.

I don't see why he should have more than half! He was having to 'finance another house' because of his own selfish actions! He had an affair and left his wife (the OP) and his family.

So he brought it on himself having to fund 2 houses! That is the least he could do after he left his wife in the lurch and left her and his family!

I hope the OP digs her heels in and makes sure she gets as much money as possible from all of this!

FBaby

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.

Maybe that's the block factor. Maybe he wants the share to reflect that he will have to pay capital gain through not fault of his.

Guest101

fierystormcloud wrote: »

I don't see why he should have more than half! He was having to 'finance another house' because of his own selfish actions! He had an affair and left his wife (the OP) and his family.

So he brought it on himself having to fund 2 houses! That is the least he could do after he left his wife in the lurch and left her and his family!

I hope the OP digs her heels in and makes sure she gets as much money as possible from all of this!

He could just move in ofcourse, the OP really wants that im sure...

He didnt 'have' to finance 2 house.

silvercar

FBaby wrote: »

Maybe that's the block factor. Maybe he wants the share to reflect that he will have to pay capital gain through not fault of his.

If a property that he part owns but is not his main residence has increased in value, then he is potentially liable for tax on it. That is the law and hasn't changed in the last 10 years, so we can assume that when he made the decision to move out he knew what the rules were.

His actions, his decisions. How he can expect his ex-wife to mitigate his tax bill is beyond me.

If he had settled the finances of the property years ago, he wouldn't have had any gain to be taxed!