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

mrginge

Theres nothing more pathetic than a poster correcting the spelling mistakes of others.
It's classic forum strategy for those that either have a weak argument which they can't actually defend or been found out as so incompetant that they'll latch onto anything that gives their ego a boost.

densol_2

You brought sexism in this ! A few months ago I was advising this law to a parent with care ( and he happened to be a man ) The Childrens Act is interested in looking after children - not women !

In fact I am VERY anti people getting screwed on divorce ( and yes its usually men ) I saw it happened to my previous husband by his ex wife, and it wasnt nice.

Here we have a situation where presumably mummy has told the kiddie - its ok - its nearly over and you are staying in your house, near friends etc - then at the 11th hour chummy decides he is going pull out/delay - whatever ! Nice.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest she go after him for loads more money - the financial order the court could make could force the transfer through

DandelionPatrol

Guest101 wrote: »

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

You need to do much better than shout 'sexism' and call in the mods.

First of all, you need to actually make the case that it actually IS sexism.

Then you need to present an alternative way of dealing with the situation.

You need to argue the case, not shut down the opposition. Censorship is generally an immature way of addressing a point that you do not like. Censorship is worse than sexism and other related ~isms. While it shuts down expression of the idea you dislike in the place where you censor it, it leaves the idea unchallenged and free to be expressed elsewhere. But if you make the argument against it, you might convince the person who has the idea of your view and you are presenting the reasons why another person should not take on board the ideas that you do not like.

Richard_Webster

I'll go back tot the original question.

Is the conveyancer acting just for him or for both of you?

If he is acting just for him then mere signature of the documetn is generally not sufficient. He has to instruct his conveyancer to complete thematter and if he tells him not to go ahead then that's that.

If he is supposedly acting for both of you there is a conflict of interest and this is potentially a professional disciplinary matter. In any event he would have to act on your joint instructions and they wouldn't be joint if he won't join in.

martindow

After a break up people can easily be coerced into actions that they later realise are not sensible or fair. It could well be that after reflection or talking to a solicitor the ex has changed their mind.

Before Guest piles in, this is true for either gender!

dodger1

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.

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.

I'm having a slow day, why is that comment sexist?

G_M

I suspect SeperatingParent has been driven off by the bickering.

Come on guys, let it drop!

As Richard has said, whether he can back out depends where the Transfer document is:

* with his conveyancer, waiting to be passed to your conveyancer - he can back out
* with your conveyancer, having been passed there by his - too late to back out. Commitment made
* with your jointly shared solicitor - potential conflict of interest (naughty solicitor) - ambiguous but probobly he can back out.

Can you clarify?

davidmcn

G_M wrote: »

* with your conveyancer, having been passed there by his - too late to back out. Commitment made

Not if completion hasn't happened yet.

Freecall

Guest101 wrote: »

Not that I agree that staying in the same home is paramount.

The above comment is clearly racist and should be reported to the mods.

Where people choose to make their home is their business regardless of their ethnicity.

Not that I'm being sensitive or anything.

:rotfl:

chris_m

Freecall wrote: »

The above comment is clearly racist and should be reported to the mods.

Where people choose to make their home is their business regardless of their ethnicity.

Not that I'm being sensitive or anything.

:rotfl:

With it talking of homes, couldn't it also be ageist?