Ex Partner Equity Entitlement

Guest101

VixterW wrote: »

It won't be in the future - do you mean renting won't be the preferred option in the future? That's probably true, but she has the chance to start saving from scratch 7 years ago while my partner was given a handicap.

Why not just pay up? We genuinely can't afford to. We don't have thousands of pounds sitting around. Not that it's massively relevant but she has had a wedding and a child since, and she lives in a bigger house than ours, while my partner and I can't afford these things, so it doesn't feel fair for her to take even more for herself when my partner let her off the debt in good will.
I know this is mainly from my moral standpoint and isn't the kind of thing that would hold up in law, but I am surprised that another individual can't see the principal.

No I meant the house won't be in negative or neutral equity in the future. Your partner did not have a handicap. By paying the mortgage he was ensuring that he would get a share of any growth. Just like if the house was in further negative equity, she would be liable and your question would be - can we sue her for half the difference.

Your partner didn't let her off with good will. And her circumstances are not relevant as you say. She has an investment. If you can't pay them you're stuck, it might not be 'fair' but that's life.

Because we clearly don't have the same morals but I can see your point, I just don't see why you should benefit from her 'credit allowance'

VixterW

Okay, but my point was that at that time, the house was deeply into negative equity, so any movements in property values in the future would benefit someone starting afresh before they would benefit the person in the negative - they would first only "catch up" the person in negative equity back to the start line. If she would have taken the opportunity offered to remove herself at that point and join the property ladder while values were low, she would have benefitted tremendously.

The house did indeed go much further than £10k into negative after the break up, around £20-25k at one point, but it never crossed my partner's mind to ask for anything from her to cover that.

We haven't wanted to benefit from her credit allowance, but in not signing at the opportunity and with the way mortgage companies work, it has been more down to her inaction than our intention.

"Not fair but that's life" - yes, unless anyone has any legal input suggesting otherwise, which is what I'm hoping to stumble across here.

Agreed, I don't think our moral compasses are calibrated in the same place :-) let's agree to disagree, but thank you for putting another perspective in the mix.

Vix

Guest101

VixterW wrote: »

Okay, but my point was that at that time, the house was deeply into negative equity, so any movements in property values in the future would benefit someone starting afresh before they would benefit the person in the negative. Correct, but the Ex was not starting a fresh... - they would first only "catch up" the person in negative equity back to the start line. - Depends on where the property is located If she would have taken the opportunity - Opportunity, like you were doing her a favour? offered to remove herself at that point and join the property ladder while values were low, she would have benefitted tremendously. - She still is...

The house did indeed go much further than £10k into negative after the break up, around £20-25k at one point, but it never crossed my partner's mind to ask for anything from her to cover that. - Because it wasn't being repossessed and he wasn't in court being clobbered with a 20-25k debt.

We haven't wanted to benefit from her credit allowance - You have, you may not like that fact, but without her name on the mortgage, the house would belong to someone else right now. , but in not signing at the opportunity and with the way mortgage companies work, it has been more down to her inaction than our intention. - What action have you taken? Contacted a solicitor? Petitioned the court?

"Not fair but that's life" - yes, unless anyone has any legal input suggesting otherwise, which is what I'm hoping to stumble across here. - Sorry I wasn't clear, the legal position may have been lost. You can go to court to try force the purchase, but that will cost you in both solicitors fees AND paying her off.

Agreed, I don't think our moral compasses are calibrated in the same place :-) let's agree to disagree, but thank you for putting another perspective in the mix. - That's fine.

Vix

Like I say the legal perspective is she is owed a share, a court will decide how much, but ultimately £5,000 now or atleast £10,000 in fees.... I know which I would choose.

foxy-stoat

Whats the mortgage balance and reasonable market value now?
What would be the legal fees for selling, estate agents etc?

That should see the actual money value after the equity is split.

The longer you leave it the more money you will have to pay the Ex at some point.

-taff

Go and see a solicitor. You might get a free half hour appt.
She had half the mortgage, he can prove he's paid all the payments since they split up, see what they say first.

VixterW

Hi Foxy,
You're right, there would be very little left at that point. If it comes to it, I think that will have to be the basis for the calculation, but I still feel that it is more than she's entitled to.

Hi Taff,
Thanks - good idea. Definitely time to get some formal advice and see where it takes us.

I appreciate everyone's input on this. It has been helpful to hear some unbiased views

Vix

FBaby

It is definitely more than she should be entitled to and her attitude stink. She was happy to benefit at the time of the separation from the fact that he didn't want to be end up himself in debt at the time, so it meant that neither she was. Now she wants the benefit of the increase in equity purely from the fact that her name in on the investment and that's just quite bad values.

However, your OH need to accept that he made an error at the time by not realising that by avoiding getting into debts to the bank then, he has built a debt to her. He should have drawn a deed of trust then by which she relinquished her entitlement to any future equity. He chose not to protect himself then, and is now paying for it.

Frankly, he should try to pretend that he agrees with her and sweeten her to try to reach the limited part of her that has half a conscience, and when it is all over, be thanking his stars that he didn't end up marrying her.

marksoton

VixterW wrote: »

Hi Foxy,
You're right, there would be very little left at that point. If it comes to it, I think that will have to be the basis for the calculation, but I still feel that it is more than she's entitled to.

Hi Taff,
Thanks - good idea. Definitely time to get some formal advice and see where it takes us.

I appreciate everyone's input on this. It has been helpful to hear some unbiased views

Vix

To be frank, what YOU feel she's entitled to is irrelevant.

Your partner needs to man up, take legal advice and sort the situation.

Until he does it's none of your business. Her actions are not pleseant but his are woefully foolish.

VixterW

Hi FBay - agreed, it was a mistake at the time and shouldn't have gone on this long. We weren't aware there was any way of taking ownership of her share with her name still on the mortgage, but it certainly would have been worth investigating. Big error on our part there!

He has always stayed friendly with her, even now that she is asking for money, in hope that she will come to see what it looks like from his shoes. I'm still hopeful she will

Dear marksoton,

Thank you for your constructive, if slightly aggressive input.

I disagree - the basis of this post is what I feel is morally fair versus what the law says the lady is entitled to, so without me stating my opinion the post would be a little pointless.

Appreciate your time to voice your views.

Vix

marksoton

VixterW wrote: »

Hi FBay - agreed, it was a mistake at the time and shouldn't have gone on this long. We weren't aware there was any way of taking ownership of her share with her name still on the mortgage, but it certainly would have been worth investigating. Big error on our part there!

He has always stayed friendly with her, even now that she is asking for money, in hope that she will come to see what it looks like from his shoes. I'm still hopeful she will

Dear marksoton,

Thank you for your constructive, if slightly aggressive input.

I disagree - the basis of this post is what I feel is morally fair versus what the law says the lady is entitled to, so without me stating my opinion the post would be a little pointless.

Appreciate your time to voice your views.

Vix

Right, she isn't going to change, he needs to stop deluding himself. You keep talking in the multiple but it's HIS problem to sort.

No aggression, just reality. Again, what YOU feel is not only morally irrelevant but more importantly legally so.

There is no "our mistake" here. One person and one person only can resolve this. And that's your fella.