Seriously SCARY situation

pinkshoes

BlessedNotStressed wrote: »

It's all very well banging on about changing the locks but this man was aggressive, angry & virtually treated us like squatters! He was pretty big built, so I'm sure he'd have absolutely no problems kicking the door down!

I would be tempted to speak to some of the neighbours to see if they can shed some light in the situation.

Even if she has forged the signature, then that is between him, her and the police. The deeds are now in your name and it is your house.

If man comes back, call the police.

davidmcn

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Getting back to the fundamentals here, I'm somewhat surprised by the comments that as long as the LR entry is In the OPs names that they are OK.

Because that implies that if someone forges sale documents to your house and manages to sells it and get the LR entry changed as a result, tough luck you've lost it !

Well, the risk has got to fall somewhere. The converse would be the OP losing their home because of a fraud which they couldn't reasonably have protected themselves against.

One of the principles of land registration systems is that everyone can rely on what the register says, without having to look behind it.

A party who suffers a loss (such as the homecoming expat) may be able to claim compensation from the Land Registry, who in turn might be able to claim from whoever submitted the application. This only applies if there's an innocent party now owning and in occupation - if registration has only got as far as the fraudster then it can be undone.

Rosemary7391

davidmcn wrote: »

Well, the risk has got to fall somewhere. The converse would be the OP losing their home because of a fraud which they couldn't reasonably have protected themselves against.

One of the principles of land registration systems is that everyone can rely on what the register says, without having to look behind it.

A party who suffers a loss (such as the homecoming expat) may be able to claim compensation from the Land Registry, who in turn might be able to claim from whoever submitted the application.

I suspect that any remedy for the man would be in terms of money from the ex wife rather than removing the home of the OP as well - since he wasn't living there at the time?

What's the process for selling a house when one of the co owners is absent? Is it possible that things were done properly and he just didn't know about it?

davidmcn

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

I suspect that any remedy for the man would be in terms of money from the ex wife rather than removing the home of the OP as well - since he wasn't living there at the time?

What's the process for selling a house when one of the co owners is absent? Is it possible that things were done properly and he just didn't know about it?

I suppose it's possible there was a court order which he didn't know about, if wife/solicitors didn't know where to serve papers on him? (in fact that might be more likely than fraud, given the length of time he was out of the country)

But otherwise he would have had to be involved.

AnotherJoe

I know it's not quite the same but ISTR cases where someone bought a car in good faith which turned out to be stolen and the car was repossessed as it wasn't theirs and they lost out. I wonder where the difference is here, and if there is one?

PasturesNew

There are two options really:

If he wants THAT house back: the sale could be unravelled, then you sue various solicitors and get recompensed for your onward purchase additional costs. I doubt he wants THAT house though.

If he wants his share of the money: That's entirely between him and the seller; if he could prove it was a fraudulent claim then she'd have to hand over his half of the profits and she'd go to court for fraud etc. I expect he just wants his money and maybe his stuff. That's between them.

It's even possible he did sign the paperwork, but didn't actually understand that she was actually selling it - and had done so..... as it was ages ago and she'd mentioned it and he'd signed something.... and he hadn't heard a thing since.

He might even be back later to say "Sorry about that ...jet lag, hadn't realised, she'd not said.... I appear to have made a huge mistake"

FBaby

Someone is not going to be happy, but thankfully, it shouldn't be you.
Either it is the wife who fraudulently signed on behalf of her ex.

Or your conveyancer, who didn't check that he needed permission from the other owner.

Or the guy who will find out that all attempts were made to get in touch with him, but as he never responded, she took it to court and the sale was granted.

glasgowdan

I assume the bank will have the major interest in the house now that they've paid for most of it, and their legal team must have an interest in getting involved?

davidmcn

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I know it's not quite the same but ISTR cases where someone bought a car in good faith which turned out to be stolen and the car was repossessed as it wasn't theirs and they lost out. I wonder where the difference is here, and if there is one?

The difference is that in almost every other scenario there isn't a state register of ownership giving a guarantee of good title (the database of "registered keepers" isn't the same thing).

PasturesNew wrote: »

If he wants THAT house back: the sale could be unravelled

Like I said, it's very unlikely that's what would happen (unless the OP had been colluding in some way).

tori.k

Sounds to me like she dear John's him, I dare say the sale on her part was legit, he got used to swanning in and out, and she never told him she had moved, it's not that uncommon I confesses I did it to my ex husband only difference was at the time I left him the house.