Deeds - what is an ex entitled to?

debzyg

My partners father left the matromonial home when my partner was young, just before my partners mother divorced him.

This was well over 30 years ago. So he hasn't lived there or paid anything into the property for over 30 years and has been divorced from my partners mom for over 30 years.

Since then my partners mother has lived in the property and paid the mortgage by herself.

My partner is trying to buy his first home and has been in talks with his mom about buying the house. However, his father is still stuck on the deeds to the house.

His father has offered to sell his share of the house/deeds to my partner for a pricey lump sum. He is not a daft man and will do what he can to ensure he makes a decent amount of money out of it, despite not having anything financially to do with it for so many years.

My query however is on how much equity my partners father would actually be entitled to given he has been out of the property and not paying anything into it for over 30 years. Would he still be entitled to a 50% share if the house was sold?

I don't want my partner to get fleeced if his father isnt actually entitled to as much as he's asking for.

elsien

Did they make a financial agreement or settlement when they divorced?

debzyg

I don't think so.

I think it was just a case of them divorcing and her being allowed to stay in the home because of the two children (my partner and his brother). His father was violent so that's why they divorced.

My partner believes that as his dad is on the deeds his dad can automatically get 50% of the house, even bough he hasn't lived there for 30+ years.

G_M

I believe the starting point would be 50%.

If no amicable agreement could be reached, a court would have to adjudicate, perhaps in response to a request for a compulsoy sale.

The wife would have to make her case
* zero contribution for 30 years
* family home for the kids
* etc

and a judge would probobly rule on a different % - but I'm no divorce expert..!!

bouicca21

They need a binding financial order, which takes into account all assets/liabilities not just the house. So this is definitely one for legal advice. I think he's trying it on, but impossible to be sure without much more information (does he have a house of his own? Do either of them have dependant children? Do they have pension pots?). Double check whether an agreement was in fact reached at time of divorce.

Local solicitor may offer half an hour free; get over to wikivorce for their helpline and forum. But get all the information together first. Look at form e ( downloadable from court service) and get them both to fill it in. He may fold at the mere suggestion ... But his signature is going to be required for transfer of title, and depending on the type of ownership he may have automatic inheritance rights. This needs sorting pdq.

A court order will cost a few hundred but worth every penny.

westv

OP are you in the US? Mom?

TBagpuss

Assuming that your partner's mother is in the UK, and that she has not remarried, and assuming there was no financial order at the time they divorced, it would be open to her to make an application to the court now.

The Judge would have to come up with a settlement which was fair in all the circumstances. The *starting* point is 50%, but that is 50% of all of the assets, not just the house - does ex-husband have pensions or savings or a new property?

In deciding what was fair, the court would take into account both parties needs and resources, and would also consider the length of the marriage and the length of time that they have been divorced, and the contributions each have made since they divorced.

It's very unlikely that he would be entitled to as much as half of the current equity if she has paid the mortgage and he has not. (It's more likely that a court would consider their current positions, and take as a starting point % of the house's value equal to 50% of the net equity when they split - e.g if the house was worth £100K with a £50K mortgage when they split, then at that time the net equity would have been 50% of the value, and they might have been entitled to half of that each, so he might now be entitled 25% of the current value.

However, if at that time, and since, he has been a higher earner and has built up new assets then it may be considered fair for him to retain those and for his ex wife to retain a higher proportion of the house value.

matttye

Did they own the property as joint tenants or tenants in common?
If as tenants in common, did they make a deed of trust when they bought the house setting out their respective shares? If they agreed to 50% shares in a deed of trust and owned as tenants in common, then they would each be entitled to 50% now even though she has contributed more since he moved out.

If there was no express declaration of trust or if they held the property as joint tenants, then the courts will decide the % shares based on the rules set out in Stack v Dowden [2007] and Jones v Kernott [2011]. The latter case is especially relevant to your situation because it related to an unmarried couple who owned a house in joint names but subsequently split up and it was years before the courts were asked to decide how to split the house. The court decided that a fair split was 90% to Jones and 10% to Kernott.

ethank

Surely it would be 50% of the property minus 50% of all of the mortgage payments that he missed.

What is your partner's relationship with his dad like? Can he not tell him to back off?