Divorce with no financial settlement implications

The_Phantom

Just need some general guidance on my divorce two years ago.

I was married for 17 years to someone with mental health issues and subsequent huge debt problems with subsequent bankruptcy. (my husband was the one being declared bankrupt, not me)
We have two children under 16 and a house with two joint mortgages on the property. (one is a secured loan actually)

We both work and have always worked, due to our constantly strained financial situation I only took minimum maternity leave for both children and went straight back to work.

During the bankruptcy proceedings I bought out the official receiver for a nominal amount as the property was well into negative equity due to the mortgage and secured loan.

I finally requested a separation (three years ago) and divorce (two years ago). The divorce was finalized without a financial settlement as the house was still well into negative equity (and still is) and there were no savings anymore (he took what there was in order to set himself up in a rented property).

I am still living in the marital house with the children and make sole payments to both mortgages (£1200.- per month)

He is paying child maintenance but makes no contribution to the mortgage and secured loan.

He has asked several times for 'his share of the house' , requesting that I sell it or pay him out otherwise. I told him I won't be selling the property as it is in negative equity and he is already receiving 'his share' by me paying his half of the mortgage and secured loan every month.

If he requested a financial settlement after the property is finally paid off or once it goes into positive equity in a few years or so, could he still get additional money from me or would my mortgage payments which I make on my own be taken into account at all ?

He is living with his new girlfriend now in her house, and I am not sure what their financial arrangements are between them.

RAS

For heaven's sake sort this out now. You really needed a final consent order when you divorced. Not sure if you can do that now.

The_Phantom

I have no idea. My solicitor at the time said a financial order is not required to divorce, especially if there are just debts to distribute.
Apparently you can do this years after the divorce, but it will be harder for the person requesting it to justify the details the longer it is being left.
Basically if I do nothing and he requests a financial settlement involving the house many years later it will be much harder to justify and more expensive to get through the courts. (or so I have been told)

I assume he can't afford any legal costs associated with something like this and I don't fancy paying out for more in relation to this marriage than I already have done over the years. He has basically drained me of all my savings (to constantly pay off credit card debts for him) and additional money during his bankruptcy just to keep the house going. I am not really too inclined to pay more now for a financial settlement, as it would yet again be me who is paying for it all.

I am quite happy to leave it as it is and wait to see if he makes any move in the future and if he does, I intend to defend the claim.

For some reason his name has also been removed from the land registry after the bankruptcy. When I bought out the official receiver it would appear his name was not put back on. Although it probably should have been done. Not sure on that, but his name only appears on the mortgages and loans relating to the house, which he is not paying anyway.

RAS

The_Phantom wrote: »

He has asked several times for 'his share of the house' , requesting that I sell it or pay him out otherwise. I told him I won't be selling the property as it is in negative equity and he is already receiving 'his share' by me paying his half of the mortgage and secured loan every month.

Your expectations and his do not match. Regardless of the house being in negative equity, he still thinks that "his share" exists because regardless of ownership the house was "an asset/debt of the marriage" at the time of the divorce. This may be the same sort of magical thinking that led to his bankruptcy?

You need to make absolutely plain to him that at this point in time sale of the house would only lead you to ask him for his share of the debt?

Hopefully he will produce some sort of bluster in writing in which he claims not longer to be responsible for the debt, which you may be wise to get copied and certified for a fiver in case the original gets lost.

The_Phantom

My Ex is Bi-Polar, so he is difficult to deal with at times.
He wanted to move back in and stay in a spare bedroom (of which there isn't one with two kids), then he wanted the house to be sold (which I declined), then he wanted his share in a payout (I then told him he is already getting that in lieu by me making the entire repayments on my own). I told him he had to sue me if he wanted anything , I then heard no more of it. I am pretty sure he won't have the money to pay for a court case against me, but I would be happy to defend it rigorously.
So I was just wondering whether my statement 'you are already getting your share every month I make sole payments' has any substance in law, as I just said it out of the spur of the moment. Thinking that I am already paying £600.- per month on his behalf to the mortgage and loan company. There are another 13 years to pay and over that period of time that would amount to over £100000

tiger_eyes

If the house is in negative equity with a joint mortgage, it is a debt, not an asset. His share would be half of the negative equity. He would be paying you if he wants out, not vice versa.

silvercar

Although it probably should have been done. Not sure on that, but his name only appears on the mortgages and loans relating to the house, which he is not paying anyway.

As mortgages and secured loans are not included in bankruptcies, his name is correctly still recorded on them.

If your purchase of the beneficial interest in the property has been recorded on the deeds as you now owning it, then that is the situation - you own any equity in the property.

So you have the situation where he is jointly liable for the mortgage and secured loan but has no equity in the property.

Talk of him paying half the mortgage is not accurate. Although he is jointly liable that does not equate to an obligation to pay half. You are both liable for all payments.

There is an argument that, as you are living in the property with the children, you should be paying the housing costs out of your income plus the maintenance he provides.

There is also an argument that, if he should be paying half the mortgage, you should be paying him something for renting his share of the property off you.

Obviously the situation is complex and the need for a financial settlement is clear.

The_Phantom

silvercar wrote: »

As mortgages and secured loans are not included in bankruptcies, his name is correctly still recorded on them.

If your purchase of the beneficial interest in the property has been recorded on the deeds as you now owning it, then that is the situation - you own any equity in the property.

So you have the situation where he is jointly liable for the mortgage and secured loan but has no equity in the property.


There is also an argument that, if he should be paying half the mortgage, you should be paying him something for renting his share of the property off you.

.

That is the point I don't quite understand. Why should I be paying him something for renting his share of the property ? What share ?
I don't quite understand that point.

When he went bankrupt his share in the house was taken over by the official receiver and I was told I was now jointly owning the house with the receiver.
I then had to buy out the receiver to safeguard the house.

So what is my ex's share of the property at this point in time and why would I have to pay him rent for it ?
It would appear that I am the one who is paying for everything and he still has got some benefits out of it all.

He was married previously and had that marital house repossessed - again due to huge debts (I only found that out too late).

I paid for the deposit of the house out of my savings , I paid for his bankruptcy out of my savings (funnily enough you have to pay the court for declaring you bankrupt), I bought out the official receiver and paid all the associated legal costs (out of my savings), I pay both mortgages as there is no option to sell the house due to being in negative equity.

So if he was to pay his share of the debts I would have to pay him rent ...for what exactly ?

The funny thing is, if I now wanted to get a financial order and settlement....I would be the one paying for all associated costs yet again.

Surely there has to be an argument of fairness and common sense somewhere along the line.

AdventurousSort

Hey there - could you take on the mortgage and loan in your sole name? When I left a house I joint-owned with a friend, she went through the process with the bank to become the sole mortgagee. Given you're already paying the full cost, presumably the affordability calcs will be fine? I did pay for the admin of this (there's a legal dimension too) as it was me that wanted to leave and get my own place, but it wasn't too much (around £100? though this was about 15 years ago!)

Could you up all his 'halves' of mortgage and loan payments since you separated, and present that to him formally as constituting his 'share', proposing that you take on sole responsibility for the debts. Can't help thinking that a formal resolution to the issue might be good psychologically, even if leaving things as they are has worked out fine so far.

First_Trouble

If you don't have a final consent order, can he not still claim against any equity when you have finally paid off all his debts?

Wouldn't it be cheaper and less hassle to sort it now than further down the line? Not to mention piece of mind for you knowing that you won't have to fight it out with him in the future.

I would be tempted to secure the advices of a solicitor to lay down all your options. I think it would be worth the costs in the long run.

TBagpuss

Youare correct - the house is in negative equity so there is nothing for him to have a share of.

It would be possible for him to apply for an order when the house goes back into positive equity.

When an order is applied for, a Judge has to try to decide what finacial settlement is fair and reasonable taking into account all the circumstances. The fact that the hosue was in negative equity when you spearated and that he has made no contributions to it since, and that you bought the property from the OR would all be relevant, and it is very unlikely that he would be awarded naything BUT a court isentitled to take into *all* relevant circumsntaces 0 this could include any arguments he put forwrd as to the respjns for his bankruptcy (e.g. if he had debts in hs sole name which benefited the family as a whole) his health, and his needs.

It would be sensible for you to get this sorteed now, while the house is still in negative equity.

You and he could agree to have a consent order - this could include a n undertaking from you to continue to pay the mortgage and to use your best endevours to get his name off the mortgage (the reality is that you are very unlikly to be able to get him released until the the house is out of negative equity) and otherwise provide for a clean break.

If he won't agree to a consent order then you could (unless you have remarried) apply to the corut for a finacial settlement and ask the court to make a clen break order. That would be more expensve but still worth doing so that you have a clean break.