Being taken to court by my ex for force sale

Angela_D_3

You need a messers order to stay in the house until the youngest is 18.  You need legal advice urgently before it goes too far.  

[Deleted User]

IAngela_D_3 said:

You need a messers order to stay in the house until the youngest is 18.  You need legal advice urgently before it goes too far.  

I think you mean “Mesher”
As you are not married, you cannot go down the usual matrimonial causes act for financial claims. However you may well be able to seek assistance from the Court under a schedule 1 Childrens Act claim to house the children until they are 18. Its a VERY specialised area and you need advice. Unless domestic violence, you would not get legal aid.  

Further you will be claiming a beneficial interest in the property if he makes a Lands tribunal application under TOTLA 

You need to see a solicitor who specialises in the above 

GDB2222

Whilst I am sure that the OP definitely needs a solicitor, I assume she has little spare cash. Are there solicitors who will take this case on on a no win - no fee basis? 

Angela_D_3

GDB2222 said:

Whilst I am sure that the OP definitely needs a solicitor, I assume she has little spare cash. Are there solicitors who will take this case on on a no win - no fee basis? 

Unfortunately not.  The trouble is without legal representation you end up paying one way or another.  Either by money you pay out and get the lawyers services or you pay by losing money 

[Deleted User]

There is so much misinformation on this thread. Just because someone has children does not mean that a court will not rule that the property has to be sold. Staying in a property until the youngest reaches the age of 18 isn’t even a given for divorcing couples let alone unmarried couples. Mesher orders aren’t available for unmarried couples. 

The OP doesn’t appear to be a legal or beneficial owner of the property at the moment so she will need to establish a beneficial interest based on her money being used for the deposit. That should help ensure she gets something when the property is sold or she buys out her ex if that is a possibility. 

@Rebecca2501 have you suggested mediation to your ex. It would be less expensive than court. 

Angela_D_3

 He can only force a sale by going to court - as I understand you are unmarried and from what you've said are a joint owner, so he would have to apply for a court order (for info I think he'd be applying under section 14 of the trust of land and appointments of trustees act 1996).

The court has to take account of:

1. the wishes of the owners;

2. the interests of any children resident in the property (although I understand that reported cases don't give this that much weight); and

3. the interests of the bank (as it has security over the house).

The court can:

1. order sale; or

2. give an order that one side or the other gets to live in the house (which could be time restricted - e.g. until the last child reaches 18).

If they go for option 2, the person occupying the house may be required to make payments to the person who is not allowed to live in the house (effectively, rent). 

While this is still going on, the mortgage still has to be paid.

If he is going to be an !!!!!!, you really need to get a solicitor. 

[Deleted User]

Angela_D_3 said:

 He can only force a sale by going to court - as I understand you are unmarried and from what you've said are a joint owner, so he would have to apply for a court order (for info I think he'd be applying under section 14 of the trust of land and appointments of trustees act 1996).

The court has to take account of:

1. the wishes of the owners;

2. the interests of any children resident in the property (although I understand that reported cases don't give this that much weight); and

3. the interests of the bank (as it has security over the house).

The court can:

1. order sale; or

2. give an order that one side or the other gets to live in the house (which could be time restricted - e.g. until the last child reaches 18).

If they go for option 2, the person occupying the house may be required to make payments to the person who is not allowed to live in the house (effectively, rent). 

While this is still going on, the mortgage still has to be paid.

If he is going to be an !!!!!!, you really need to get a solicitor. 

The OP isn’t a joint owner. She quite clearly said in the opening post, “He didn’t put me on the deeds or anything.”  Now the OP might be able to establish a beneficial interest in the property but at present she is neither a legal or beneficial owner of the property. 

Angela_D_3

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

 He can only force a sale by going to court - as I understand you are unmarried and from what you've said are a joint owner, so he would have to apply for a court order (for info I think he'd be applying under section 14 of the trust of land and appointments of trustees act 1996).

The court has to take account of:

1. the wishes of the owners;

2. the interests of any children resident in the property (although I understand that reported cases don't give this that much weight); and

3. the interests of the bank (as it has security over the house).

The court can:

1. order sale; or

2. give an order that one side or the other gets to live in the house (which could be time restricted - e.g. until the last child reaches 18).

If they go for option 2, the person occupying the house may be required to make payments to the person who is not allowed to live in the house (effectively, rent). 

While this is still going on, the mortgage still has to be paid.

If he is going to be an !!!!!!, you really need to get a solicitor. 

The OP isn’t a joint owner. She quite clearly said in the opening post, “He didn’t put me on the deeds or anything.”  Now the OP might be able to establish a beneficial interest in the property but at present she is neither a legal or beneficial owner of the property. 

So the court won’t take her views into account 🙄
They make take the need to house the children into account. 

[Deleted User]

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

 He can only force a sale by going to court - as I understand you are unmarried and from what you've said are a joint owner, so he would have to apply for a court order (for info I think he'd be applying under section 14 of the trust of land and appointments of trustees act 1996).

The court has to take account of:

1. the wishes of the owners;

2. the interests of any children resident in the property (although I understand that reported cases don't give this that much weight); and

3. the interests of the bank (as it has security over the house).

The court can:

1. order sale; or

2. give an order that one side or the other gets to live in the house (which could be time restricted - e.g. until the last child reaches 18).

If they go for option 2, the person occupying the house may be required to make payments to the person who is not allowed to live in the house (effectively, rent). 

While this is still going on, the mortgage still has to be paid.

If he is going to be an !!!!!!, you really need to get a solicitor. 

The OP isn’t a joint owner. She quite clearly said in the opening post, “He didn’t put me on the deeds or anything.”  Now the OP might be able to establish a beneficial interest in the property but at present she is neither a legal or beneficial owner of the property. 

So the court won’t take her views into account 🙄
They make take the need to house the children into account. 

What planet do you live on?  As things stand why would a court take her views into account?  They weren't married and she is neither a beneficial nor a legal owner of the property.

Angela_D_3

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

 He can only force a sale by going to court - as I understand you are unmarried and from what you've said are a joint owner, so he would have to apply for a court order (for info I think he'd be applying under section 14 of the trust of land and appointments of trustees act 1996).

The court has to take account of:

1. the wishes of the owners;

2. the interests of any children resident in the property (although I understand that reported cases don't give this that much weight); and

3. the interests of the bank (as it has security over the house).

The court can:

1. order sale; or

2. give an order that one side or the other gets to live in the house (which could be time restricted - e.g. until the last child reaches 18).

If they go for option 2, the person occupying the house may be required to make payments to the person who is not allowed to live in the house (effectively, rent). 

While this is still going on, the mortgage still has to be paid.

If he is going to be an !!!!!!, you really need to get a solicitor. 

The OP isn’t a joint owner. She quite clearly said in the opening post, “He didn’t put me on the deeds or anything.”  Now the OP might be able to establish a beneficial interest in the property but at present she is neither a legal or beneficial owner of the property. 

So the court won’t take her views into account 🙄
They make take the need to house the children into account. 

What planet do you live on?  As things stand why would a court take her views into account?  They weren't married and she is neither a beneficial nor a legal owner of the property.

Can you ac