Ex put nothing into house now wants 40%

csgohan4

Wake_up_call wrote: »

People in this thread have been terribly harsh on the OP.

Yes, it is their own making and yes she is entitled to that percentage, but lets not overlook the fact that the op obviously loved this woman and that leads to people make decisions which seem good and fair at the time and end up being anything but.

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that this woman choose to leave the home, she choose not to contribute to its upkeep, and she choose not to pay her share of the mortgage.

Legally, she is well within her rights, but morally it is very wrong of her to take a huge share an asset that she clearly never really considered to be her own.

Bottom line is, morality is not law. It's a tough in real life and we all make mistakes and we have to live with them and move forward.

The ex is entitled to her share as they both took out a agreement. The op should really have set out her share according to her contribution thus far and future contributions which he didn't.

He will have to live with this mistake and he will only make things worse trying to wriggle himself out via court and dragging his feet. They both agreed on x and he must agree to it or risk stressful court appearances and his credit file being ruined.

Wake_up_call

csgohan4 wrote: »

Bottom line is, morality is not law. It's a tough in real life and we all make mistakes and we have to live with them and move forward.

The ex is entitled to her share as they both took out a agreement. The op should really have set out her share according to her contribution thus far and future contributions which he didn't.

He will have to live with this mistake and he will only make things worse trying to wriggle himself out via court and dragging his feet. They both agreed on x and he must agree to it or risk stressful court appearances and his credit file being ruined.

I agree entirely, but the OP deserves a little more understanding than has been offered here. Frankly, some of the comments made on here have been rude to him and I don't believe he deserves that for a genuine mistake, especially one that came out of love for someone.

He needs to try and negotiate with her, but that can be tricky, especially if their relationship didn't end on good terms.

Mojisola

Wake_up_call wrote: »

Legally, she is well within her rights, but morally it is very wrong of her to take a huge share an asset that she clearly never really considered to be her own.

Wake_up_call wrote: »

He needs to try and negotiate with her, but that can be tricky, especially if their relationship didn't end on good terms.

I agree with you.

It doesn't sound as if she was set on getting her share until the solicitor pointed out that she was entitled to 42% so she may be willing to negotiate.

I'd start out by asking for the £13k deposit you received from your grandmother and then splitting the rest. However, if she stands her ground, she is legally in the right asking for the 42%.

TrickyTree83

Not entirely sure how a judge would view that.

I have heard from a friend who divorced, she paid all the deposit, paid all of the mortgage but the husbands name was on the mortgage. She was minted so she probably paid for a good solicitor who actually managed to fight that and had it recognised that even though on the title they were joint owners it was easily demonstrable that he'd put nothing towards it. As I recall she settled for a certain amount that he would have paid towards the household but basically got the house and all the equity.

If you were to take the case all the way it's perhaps not as cut and dry as some on here are making out. As I said that was from a friend who was minted (multiple central London properties).

Mojisola

K4zzo wrote: »

There is only about £24,000 equity which includes the £13,000 I paid as the deposit when we bought it.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If you were to take the case all the way it's perhaps not as cut and dry as some on here are making out.

It depends how much you are fighting over.

With only £24k to argue over, it would be easy to spend quite a lot of that on legal fees.

theEnd

Suggest to her that you take your £13k back, then give her 42% of the 11k profit (probably a bit less once you've paid fees etc).

Would she have been liable if the house had gone down in price?

AnotherJoe

Wake_up_call wrote: »

People in this thread have been terribly harsh on the OP.

Yes, it is their own making and yes she is entitled to that percentage, and thats not harsh LOL? but lets not overlook the fact that the op obviously loved this woman and that leads to people make decisions which seem good and fair at the time and end up being anything but.

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that this woman choose to leave the home, she choose not to contribute to its upkeep, and she choose not to pay her share of the mortgage.

Legally, she is well within her rights, there's the harshness again but morally it is very wrong of her to take a huge share an asset that she clearly never really considered to be her own.

And whats that got to do with what he's due? Thats his question, its not about tea and sympathy, its about what he can get, where he stands legally, and with such a relatively small amount is it really worth spaffing a lot of money on legal fees? Is that what you envisage? If its not, what do you suggest?

And, to play devils advocate, maybe she chose to leave because the situation was intolerable.

And dont forget, she had to pay rent elsewhere (which was likely more than the mortgage and upkeep combined).

Both of them have to pay to live somewhere, so whats so special about the OPs payment to live somewhere?

If they flipped a coin and he'd left and she'd stayed and the ex ended up paying £380 mortgage whilst the OP paid £500 rent, does that mean the OP isn't now entitled to anything?

TrickyTree83

AnotherJoe wrote: »

If they flipped a coin and he'd left and she'd stayed and the ex ended up paying £380 mortgage whilst the OP paid £500 rent, does that mean the OP isn't now entitled to anything?

I think it would depend on the circumstances rather than a cut and dry "it's in the contract therefore it is binding". It's not always the case.

AnotherJoe

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I think it would depend on the circumstances rather than a cut and dry "it's in the contract therefore it is binding". It's not always the case.

I agree "It's not always the case" but given the costs of going to court, the relatively small sums involved and likelihood of losing when there is a clear DoT witnessed by solicitor, which plainly grants a specific portion to the ex, odds arent looking good if ex stands her ground.

Floxxie

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Not entirely sure how a judge would view that.

I have heard from a friend who divorced, she paid all the deposit, paid all of the mortgage but the husbands name was on the mortgage. She was minted so she probably paid for a good solicitor who actually managed to fight that and had it recognised that even though on the title they were joint owners it was easily demonstrable that he'd put nothing towards it. As I recall she settled for a certain amount that he would have paid towards the household but basically got the house and all the equity.

If you were to take the case all the way it's perhaps not as cut and dry as some on here are making out. As I said that was from a friend who was minted (multiple central London properties).

That's under matrimonial law where the judges can do things other land/contract laws can't do!