If my ex-partner has signed a Transfer of Equity is it legally binding

SeparatingParent

Hi,


I've been going through the process of buying my ex-partner out of our previous family home so my daughter and I can stay living there. I got estate agents to value the property, we agreed an amount I would need to pay him to buy him out and he signed and had witnessed an 'Acceptance of Offer' letter that stated the amount I would give him. We then instructed a conveyancer to process the Transfer of Equity, all the paperwork has been completed and he has signed the transfer documents which are now back with the conveyancer.


Literally the day before the money was due to be transferred to him he rang the conveyancer and asked them not to process it and he was reconsidering whether he wanted to proceed. I still want to proceed and finally cut our financial ties.


Is the Transfer of Equity legally binding now that he's signed it? Is there a way of forcing the Transfer of Equity through?

chris_m

What does your conveyancer say?

davidmcn

If it's his solicitor (or a solicitor acting for both of you) then yes, I would expect any deeds are held to his instructions so he can call a halt to proceedings.

The division of any joint property can ultimately be decided by a court.

densol_2

look up proceedings under the children act - financial settlements for the benefit of children. A few mumblings that you are considering applying for this may " attune " his mind to being sensible.

Guest101

densol wrote: »

look up proceedings under the children act - financial settlements for the benefit of children. A few mumblings that you are considering applying for this may " attune " his mind to being sensible.

What a very Sexist comment & duly reported.


1: We don't know the reason he's asked to stop proceedings.
2: We don't know what their settlement is. (it sounds like the OP is pushing it through - which would mean the children's act would give her the opposite of what she wants)
3: He needs to be 'sensible'...


Wow.

densol_2

Guest101 wrote: »

What a very Sexist comment & duly reported.


1: We don't know the reason he's asked to stop proceedings.
2: We don't know what their settlement is. (it sounds like the OP is pushing it through - which would mean the children's act would give her the opposite of what she wants)
3: He needs to be 'sensible'...


Wow.

Wow - I feel like Im in the twilite zone !

What is sexist about ensuring the welfare of a childs interests and thus staying in the family home is paramount ? Thats the law under the Children Act! Jeez

DandelionPatrol

Guest101 wrote: »

What a very Sexist comment & duly reported.


1: We don't know the reason he's asked to stop proceedings.
2: We don't know what their settlement is. (it sounds like the OP is pushing it through - which would mean the children's act would give her the opposite of what she wants)
3: He needs to be 'sensible'...


Wow.

While I can see that most of what you have to say has some merit - or is at least arguable, you should please stick to arguing the point.

'Duly Reported' is not in the least appropriate for the post you are commenting on. I would rather see what densol has to say rather that have you engage the mods on this and stop me seeing densol's post and making up my own mind.

Guest101

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

While I can see that most of what you have to say has some merit - or is at least arguable, you should please stick to arguing the point.

'Duly Reported' is not in the least appropriate for the post you are commenting on. I would rather see what densol has to say rather that have you engage the mods on this and stop me seeing densol's post and making up my own mind.

Densol has replied pal..

Guest101

densol wrote: »

Wow - I feel like Im in the twilite zone !

What is sexist about ensuring the welfare of a childs interests and thus staying in the family home is paramount ? Thats the law under the Children Act! Jeez

Twilight*

I did explain what I thought was sexist.

There is no suggestion that the child would lose their home...

In fact your advice would mean the OPs ex would be left paid a percentage in years to come, which the OP is clearly avoiding.

Not that I agree that staying in the same home is paramount. Really a child needs a home which is affordable for the PWC, which often isn't the family home following a split.

DandelionPatrol

Guest101 wrote: »

Densol has replied pal..

Irrelevant. Have you backed down from your report and called the mods off, pal?

Guest101

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Irrelevant. Have you backed down from your report and called the mods off, pal?

Absolutely not, there is no room for sexism in these forums.