Ex relatives trying to sue me for a gift

Unfairclaim

HI, thanks for all the replies so far, they really help.

Just some more info in regards to the comments above. I cannot remember if the cheque was in joint names or just my ex, but, it was received after we moved in (so could not have been used to purchase the house) I also have the completion statement from the purchase which clearly states it was funded by equity from last house plus a mortgage.

My defence went in as -
I did not take out a loan from the claimant in 2018
The purchase of xxxx was made in full from the proceeds of the sale of a previous property together with a xxx mortgage, no loans were used
I have never been part of any discussion or arrangement of a loan with the claimant
I can have no responsibility to repay a 'loan' I did not take out
I have had no communication with the claimants in over a year

Does this sound reasonable as a defence?

Also, I have received the attached letter 'notice of transfer of proceedings' it says it is being transferred to the claimants court, I am sure in one of the previous letters it said I could request it be at my local court, (theirs is 150 miles away) has anyone had this letter before & what comes next?

Thanks again

Brie

can't help about the court location but I must say - it must be a heck of a gift if they are going to court over it.  

I like your defence - short and to the point - but I am not a lawyer so what do I know.  

But good luck!  Let us know how you get on.

Neruda

Unfairclaim said:

Just some more info in regards to the comments above. I cannot remember if the cheque was in joint names or just my ex, but, it was received after we moved in (so could not have been used to purchase the house) I also have the completion statement from the purchase which clearly states it was funded by equity from last house plus a mortgage.

I think it would be worth your time/trouble to go through bank statments and see whether it was paid into a joint account.

Thrugelmir

Unfairclaim said:

HI, thanks for all the replies so far, they really help.

Just some more info in regards to the comments above. I cannot remember if the cheque was in joint names or just my ex, but, it was received after we moved in (so could not have been used to purchase the house) I also have the completion statement from the purchase which clearly states it was funded by equity from last house plus a mortgage.

My defence went in as -
I did not take out a loan from the claimant in 2018
The purchase of xxxx was made in full from the proceeds of the sale of a previous property together with a xxx mortgage, no loans were used
I have never been part of any discussion or arrangement of a loan with the claimant
I can have no responsibility to repay a 'loan' I did not take out
I have had no communication with the claimants in over a year

Does this sound reasonable as a defence?

Also, I have received the attached letter 'notice of transfer of proceedings' it says it is being transferred to the claimants court, I am sure in one of the previous letters it said I could request it be at my local court, (theirs is 150 miles away) has anyone had this letter before & what comes next?

Thanks again

Keep your responses simple and concise. Remember the onus is on the claimant to prove it was a loan.  The claimant will need to respond to your defence. 

Have the ex in laws appointed a solicitor? 

fatbelly

Normally a case would be transferred to the defendant's nearest court. It may not make much difference as the court will try to get this resolved without a face-to-face hearing

macman

Neruda said:

Unfairclaim said:

Just some more info in regards to the comments above. I cannot remember if the cheque was in joint names or just my ex, but, it was received after we moved in (so could not have been used to purchase the house) I also have the completion statement from the purchase which clearly states it was funded by equity from last house plus a mortgage.

I think it would be worth your time/trouble to go through bank statments and see whether it was paid into a joint account.

This ^. Surely you know whether or not you had a joint account with your ex, and what account it was paid into? If you did not, then their case falls at the first hurdle, as you never received the money yourself.

Brie

macman said:

Neruda said:

Unfairclaim said:

Just some more info in regards to the comments above. I cannot remember if the cheque was in joint names or just my ex, but, it was received after we moved in (so could not have been used to purchase the house) I also have the completion statement from the purchase which clearly states it was funded by equity from last house plus a mortgage.

I think it would be worth your time/trouble to go through bank statments and see whether it was paid into a joint account.

This ^. Surely you know whether or not you had a joint account with your ex, and what account it was paid into? If you did not, then their case falls at the first hurdle, as you never received the money yourself.

I disagree somewhat. 

Obviously if there's a joint account either party can pay into it.  So if Unfairclaim & Ex are joint on the acct the cheque could have been made out to Ex only and paid in.  So the simple fact that there was a joint account proves nothing, presuming that's where the money was paid.

If on the other hand there was no joint account then it would have to have been in one name or the other.  

Unfairclaim

Thanks for the comments, yes we had joint accounts however these were closed after the divorce, also during the divorce my ex's solicitor added the following paragraph into a letter - which clearly says the money was 'given'






The reply from my solicitor was as follows -






As there was no loan it was then removed from my wife's solicitors letter, it was also not mentioned on the divorce financial consent order or any loans listed either


Any further advice appreciated

Thank you again

Thrugelmir

Then the matter was dealt with at the time of your divorce. Something you can add to your defence. 

fatbelly

You've still got to defend the claim (until they give up) but I can't see that hey have a leg to stand on.