Evicting family members.

Stoke

Like I said, I don't know the full ins and outs, but essentially, she put £800 into paying something towards the mortgage. She had nothing on the deeds and no previous assets within the house. He voluntarily gave her those payments back when their relationship finished.

Despite this, he has been told if it went to court, she might get 50% despite (as it currently stands) not putting a single penny in. That's a fact that she openly acknowledges.

Red-Squirrel_2

Stoke wrote: »

Like I said, I don't know the full ins and outs, but essentially, she put £800 into paying something towards the mortgage. She had nothing on the deeds and no previous assets within the house. He voluntarily gave her those payments back when their relationship finished.

Despite this, he has been told if it went to court, she might get 50% despite (as it currently stands) not putting a single penny in. That's a fact that she openly acknowledges.

Total BS.

You're either not getting the full story from your mate or you made it up to make a point about money grabbing women.

annandale

That's nonsense. A friend of my family had to fight in court and spend a lot of money to get a share of the house she had lived in for years. They weren't married (law might be slightly different in Scotland). She had sold her flat and put the proceeds towards that house. Her ex was trying to make sure she got nothing.

It is tosh that someone would walk away with a fifty per cent share of a flat having lived there a few months and made a few payments to the mortgage

Comms69

Stoke wrote: »

Adverse possession.

Can't be bothered to go any deeper than that. He knows better than me, but that's all there is to it. It's going to cost him 4 grand to get rid of her, which is apparently a bargain because his solicitor believes if it went to court, she would probably get more.

What a load of nonsense


adverse possession... just a blatant lie.


"Cant be bothered to go deeper", because it's just not true...!!!

Comms69

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Is his solicitor the woman's mum or something? Even if not, he needs a better solicitor. Adverse possession applies to land and requires at least 10 years of occupation.

There's "beneficial interest" which is more likely, but the test for that is higher than most people on forums seem to think.

And MUCh MUCh higher than 6 months, paying a tiny bit of a mortgage. Clearly just a fantasist

Stoke

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Total BS.

You're either not getting the full story from your mate or you made it up to make a point about money grabbing women.

Why would I do that? I've just been through one of the nastiest and spiteful breakups myself, and haven't even mentioned it? I easily could have.... I mention his situation because it seems very wrong.

Obviously I don't know the full story 100%; I've not been through his finances and mortgage documentation with a fine toothed comb. I wouldn't expect him to let me, I'm not his solicitor.

For all I know, it's entirely possible she's on the mortgage deeds and he doesn't want to admit it (I remember telling him to get a declaration of trust when he bought the house), which completely changes the dynamic of the situation and gives her legal benefits within the house. It's still somewhat wrong that having put a limited amount financially into the house, she can get almost half the equity back, but that's ultimately a contractual thing. He signed it..... if it's true.

If you think I'm trying to make this a gendered issue as well.... that's wrong. I'm aware that a male could potentially pull this. I never mentioned gender, I said it was wrong that the law hasn't caught up.... I don't feel it has.

System

You must stay put, even if it gets unbearable. Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

Comms69

Stoke wrote: »

Why would I do that? I've just been through one of the nastiest and spiteful breakups myself, and haven't even mentioned it? I easily could have.... I mention his situation because it seems very wrong. - because its not true...

Obviously I don't know the full story 100%; I've not been through his finances and mortgage documentation with a fine toothed comb. I wouldn't expect him to let me, I'm not his solicitor. - neither have I and I will gladly bet my savings that this is not true. Mickey Mouse looks like a QC when compared to 'his solicitor'

For all I know, it's entirely possible she's on the mortgage deeds and he doesn't want to admit it - irrelevant (I remember telling him to get a declaration of trust when he bought the house), which completely changes the dynamic of the situation and gives her legal benefits within the house - indeed, but not necessarily 50% . It's still somewhat wrong that having put a limited amount financially into the house, she can get almost half the equity back, but that's ultimately a contractual thing. He signed it..... if it's true. - She cant. Either he's lying, or you're lying

If you think I'm trying to make this a gendered issue as well.... that's wrong. I'm aware that a male could potentially pull this. I never mentioned gender, I said it was wrong that the law hasn't caught up.... I don't feel it has.

Then go and study the law and not what tim down the pub claimed after 7 pints...

Stoke

Comms69 wrote: »

What a load of nonsense


adverse possession... just a blatant lie.


"Cant be bothered to go deeper", because it's just not true...!!!

Wow, just discount my posts and call me a liar because you don't agree with them? Of course I don't know the intimate details of what is going on. I know that financially, he put 100% in, and she put in 0%, as it currently stands. She has openly accepted that and if I really wanted to be a knob about this, I'd just post up whatsapp screenshots from where she states that.

I can't be bothered to go deeper, because I'm essentially stabbing in the dark with regards to the circumstances. I don't work in legal, so I don't know where the law stands. I don't know the ins and outs..... good to see you do though because you've assumed that i'm a liar. Thanks but if you think i'm simply lying (when I have nothing to gain from such a thin) then I really can't be arsed to keep this going. It's nothing to do with spite. I was relaying his story because from what I've heard, it seems wrong. Like I said, if there's gaps of information, then I would need them filling in before knowing otherwise.

annandale wrote: »

That's nonsense. A friend of my family had to fight in court and spend a lot of money to get a share of the house she had lived in for years. They weren't married (law might be slightly different in Scotland). She had sold her flat and put the proceeds towards that house. Her ex was trying to make sure she got nothing.

It is tosh that someone would walk away with a fifty per cent share of a flat having lived there a few months and made a few payments to the mortgage

Right, well I'm telling you it isn't nonsense. It's happening to him right now. Whether the circumstances are the same, I don't know. Clearly they aren't because you had to fight to obtain a significant share of equity, whereas he's having to fight to prevent it.

The only thing at this point that I can guess, is that she is on the mortgage deeds but simply provided a limited financial input. That would allow her to ask for 50% as that's how a shared mortgage works. I got a declaration of trust in my case and as such, the house equity was divided proportionally.

Stoke

Comms69 wrote: »

Then go and study the law and not what tim down the pub claimed after 7 pints...

Well I'm not lying. I am relaying what is happening to him. So either he is lying or is mistaken or his solicitor is absolutely dreadful.

Still, I hope you're my solicitor one day if I ever need one.... you sound absolutely superb, like you've never lost and you're always right..... I like that.