Ex relatives trying to sue me for a gift

macman

Am I missing something here? The gift or loan was made to the OP's ex. Not to the OP, unless the cheque was made out to a joint account. What the ex then did with it is between them and the lender/donor. The lender/donor has no contract whatsoever with the OP, only with the ex. The lender/donor can sue the ex, and the ex can in turn sue the OP, but the former simply has no case against the OP directly.  It would be thrown out of court at the very start under these circumstances, regardless of the merits of the gift/loan dispute.

zippygeorgeandben

Please keep us updated though!

kaMelo

macman said:

Am I missing something here? The gift or loan was made to the OP's ex. Not to the OP, unless the cheque was made out to a joint account. What the ex then did with it is between them and the lender/donor. The lender/donor has no contract whatsoever with the OP, only with the ex. The lender/donor can sue the ex, and the ex can in turn sue the OP, but the former simply has no case against the OP directly.  It would be thrown out of court at the very start under these circumstances, regardless of the merits of the gift/loan dispute.

I think, reading the OP, that with the mention of ex in laws it would suggest the OP and ex were married. As such any loan/gift is to both of them, especially since the OP also mentions their ex has allegedly paid back half already. (Or at least that's the straw the ex in laws are clutching at.)
Having said all that I still don't think it makes a difference at all.The basic concept of a loan is an offer, acceptance of an offer and a realistic expectation of repayment. From the OP's information I don't see all three conditions being met with regard to the ex in laws, they have no case.

Regarding the ex suing, it's possible and probably the stronger suit but would depend on many other factors  also. How were finances dealt with when they were together and does the ex have proof they've paid the entire amount back being just two of them, 

Based upon what the OP has written there is nothing to mediate so no need to go to mediation.
You deny the loan exists so "I'll see you in court" sums up your position.
 

macman

kaMelo said:

macman said:

Am I missing something here? The gift or loan was made to the OP's ex. Not to the OP, unless the cheque was made out to a joint account. What the ex then did with it is between them and the lender/donor. The lender/donor has no contract whatsoever with the OP, only with the ex. The lender/donor can sue the ex, and the ex can in turn sue the OP, but the former simply has no case against the OP directly.  It would be thrown out of court at the very start under these circumstances, regardless of the merits of the gift/loan dispute.

I think, reading the OP, that with the mention of ex in laws it would suggest the OP and ex were married. As such any loan/gift is to both of them, especially since the OP also mentions their ex has allegedly paid back half already. (Or at least that's the straw the ex in laws are clutching at.)
Having said all that I still don't think it makes a difference at all.The basic concept of a loan is an offer, acceptance of an offer and a realistic expectation of repayment. From the OP's information I don't see all three conditions being met with regard to the ex in laws, they have no case.

Regarding the ex suing, it's possible and probably the stronger suit but would depend on many other factors  also. How were finances dealt with when they were together and does the ex have proof they've paid the entire amount back being just two of them, 

Based upon what the OP has written there is nothing to mediate so no need to go to mediation.
You deny the loan exists so "I'll see you in court" sums up your position.
 

I have no idea where you got that idea from. Husband and wife are separate fiscal and financial beings. A gift or loan to one party doesn't mean that the other party jointly owns it, or is liable for it. Unless the cheque was made out to a joint account, it was not loaned or gifted to the OP. 
You are obviously thinking of the old adage, 'what's yours is mine, what's mine's me 'own'.

kaMelo

macman said:

kaMelo said:

macman said:

Am I missing something here? The gift or loan was made to the OP's ex. Not to the OP, unless the cheque was made out to a joint account. What the ex then did with it is between them and the lender/donor. The lender/donor has no contract whatsoever with the OP, only with the ex. The lender/donor can sue the ex, and the ex can in turn sue the OP, but the former simply has no case against the OP directly.  It would be thrown out of court at the very start under these circumstances, regardless of the merits of the gift/loan dispute.

I think, reading the OP, that with the mention of ex in laws it would suggest the OP and ex were married. As such any loan/gift is to both of them, especially since the OP also mentions their ex has allegedly paid back half already. (Or at least that's the straw the ex in laws are clutching at.)
Having said all that I still don't think it makes a difference at all.The basic concept of a loan is an offer, acceptance of an offer and a realistic expectation of repayment. From the OP's information I don't see all three conditions being met with regard to the ex in laws, they have no case.

Regarding the ex suing, it's possible and probably the stronger suit but would depend on many other factors  also. How were finances dealt with when they were together and does the ex have proof they've paid the entire amount back being just two of them, 

Based upon what the OP has written there is nothing to mediate so no need to go to mediation.
You deny the loan exists so "I'll see you in court" sums up your position.
 

I have no idea where you got that idea from. Husband and wife are separate fiscal and financial beings. A gift or loan to one party doesn't mean that the other party jointly owns it, or is liable for it. Unless the cheque was made out to a joint account, it was not loaned or gifted to the OP. 
You are obviously thinking of the old adage, 'what's yours is mine, what's mine's me 'own'.

I think you misunderstood or rather I didn't explain it very clearly.
I was not suggesting that a loan to one half of a married couple can ever become a joint loan. I realise upon reading it back it looks like I was suggesting it could but for the avoidance of doubt I agree it cannot

The only way the OP could ever become liable for half would be if someone could convince a judge that both of the couple benefitted equally from a loan, this is what I was trying to say and I think this is the the (non-existent) straw the OP's ex in-laws are clutching at with their suggestion it was a loan used towards a house purchase. However that is not a case the ex in-laws can bring, it would, as you stated, have to be the ex who brought that case. 

The ex would then have to convince a judge that not only did a loan take place but it was also used for a joint house purchase. As the OP can document the house purchase with other funds then not only do the ex in-laws have no case I would say the ex has no case either, hence the "See you in court" comment.

Unfairclaim

Thanks for all the replies so far, much appreciated

just to add, during the divorce the ex inlaws asked for the amount to be included in a letter to my solicitor and be deducted from sale of former home and returned to them, my solicitor said there was no evidence of any loan so it was removed the next day without further question, it is only now they have decided to move it on to their own court proceedings

mcpitman

Unfairclaim said:

Thanks for all the replies so far, much appreciated

just to add, during the divorce the ex inlaws asked for the amount to be included in a letter to my solicitor and be deducted from sale of former home and returned to them, my solicitor said there was no evidence of any loan so it was removed the next day without further question, it is only now they have decided to move it on to their own court proceedings

I don't think they are going to get anywhere.

I'm not sure, but if you can evidence the solicitor for the house sale and divorce classes it as an invalid claim it may help your defence.

Unfairclaim

Thanks
The mediation service called me yesterday and said that this case was not suitable for mediation as I would need to agree to some kind of negotiated settlement, this is more where the amount is disputed but as mine was never a loan then it cant be negotiated

As another note, do you know which part in particular i need to prove? Their claim categotically states they lent money to buy the house, I have the completion statement that shows no loan, covered in full from equity and mortgage

Mumof4piggies

I actually have a friend that's been through this. Please note I know nothing about law but I can share what happened and what she did. You said that your ex was given a cheque that I assumed they banked. In my friends case the solicitor that worked for them when buying their house needed a letter form the parents stating that this sum of money was in fact a gift and wasn't a loan or to be paid back? Was this the same in your case? I know from when we bought our house solicitors are very thorough when it comes to money laundering etc. My friend wrote to the solicitor who sent them a copy of that letter. If they don't do this voluntarily there would be a legal way of obtaining this? I don't know if this helps at all? 

Unfairclaim

Thanks for that, this is the issue, they never lent us anything to buy a house, they gave my ex some money and now want half of it back from me, it is just greed