contesting a legal agreement.

Saviolo

Let's say you sign a legal agreement.

It turns out that the agreement you signed wasn't worded to cover all contingencies, and when its applied, it's seriously unfair on one party. To the extent that no reasonable person would have signed it.

Are there grounds for contesting the terms, and legally negotiating different terms which would fit the intention of the original agreement?

Or - you know - if you sign your soul away, would the court uphold the agreement with Satan?

Asking for a friend...

silvercar

I think we need far more details to form an opinion.

user1977

No agreement can "cover all contingencies".

Are you going to tell us what your question is really about?

Saviolo

I bought a house with my fiance and she put most of the money in (I was paying the monthly mortgage.)

I agreed it would be unfair for me to end up with a significant claim on the property, so I accepted an agreement which gave me very little interest in the property. Assuming that we were likely to be a couple for at least a couple of years, this seemed reasonable. I wanted a home with her, not an investment. If we did get divorced in say - five years - or she died and left the property to her children - then I'd get something but she had put in the bulk of the money. 

When we moved in, it turned out that the survey had been done badly and there was a lot of decay in the property, which we had not expected. There's more to it, but we also ended up with a lot of other things which arguably could be seen as 'repairs' and therefore a joint responsibility (split 50/50). I made it clear I couldn't pay for these, but my fiance wanted them done and rather than waiting or taking a loan, paid for them from her savings. 

Cutting a long story short - she broke up with me after only a few months in the house. I really hadn't seen that one coming...

We now have a situation where - having signed an agreement in good faith - I find myself being faced with a much higher repair bill than the profit I'll make when the house is sold. Basically, I'm expected to pay 50% of the repairs but I'm only making 5% of the profit of the sale of the house.   

In hindsight - which is a wonderful thing - I should have insisted that the deed was worded so that this couldn't happen. Or I should have had the agreement changed - in writing - when repairs I couldn't afford were made. In practice this would have been difficult because my partner has mental health issues and - well let's face it, when you're in love with someone you don't think like a contract lawyer. 

Seems to me that this situation is not one any 'reasonable' person could have anticipated, or would have agreed to. And agreement which would have worked fine over a longer period is no longer fit for purpose   

Feel free to call me an idiot for walking into this one. I agree. Believe me, I do. But it seems somehow wrong that a legal agreement signed in good faith is going to be applied this way.

   
 

TripleH

Does the agreement say you have to pay 50% of all repairs or is this not mentioned?

saajan_12

Saviolo said:

I bought a house with my fiance and she put most of the money in (I was paying the monthly mortgage.) - Part of your mortgage is building equity, part is monthly living costs. How much was the deposit? Whos paying other bills? Was she working? 

I agreed it would be unfair for me to end up with a significant claim on the property, so I accepted an agreement which gave me very little interest in the property. - how exactly was this worded (on the deed, not just the emails with the solicitor)? 
Assuming that we were likely to be a couple for at least a couple of years, this seemed reasonable. I wanted a home with her, not an investment. - and vice versa for her? 
If we did get divorced in say - five years - or she died and left the property to her children - then I'd get something but she had put in the bulk of the money. 

When we moved in, it turned out that the survey had been done badly and there was a lot of decay in the property, which we had not expected. There's more to it, but we also ended up with a lot of other things which arguably could be seen as 'repairs' and therefore a joint responsibility (split 50/50). - what was agreed about this, in writing? 
I made it clear I couldn't pay for these, but my fiance wanted them done and rather than waiting or taking a loan, paid for them from her savings. 

Cutting a long story short - she broke up with me after only a few months in the house. I really hadn't seen that one coming... - sorry to hear that. 

We now have a situation where - having signed an agreement in good faith - I find myself being faced with a much higher repair bill than the profit I'll make when the house is sold. Basically, I'm expected to pay 50% of the repairs but I'm only making 5% of the profit of the sale of the house.   - are you actually committed to paying the 50% of repairs ? What agreement is there for that? Can you sell without doing repairs, then you'll get whatever you get? If its only a few months after being in the house, then you've not paid much in mortgage. So 5% might not be unreasonable. 

In hindsight - which is a wonderful thing - I should have insisted that the deed was worded so that this couldn't happen. Or I should have had the agreement changed - in writing - when repairs I couldn't afford were made. In practice this would have been difficult because my partner has mental health issues and - well let's face it, when you're in love with someone you don't think like a contract lawyer. 

Seems to me that this situation is not one any 'reasonable' person could have anticipated, or would have agreed to. And agreement which would have worked fine over a longer period is no longer fit for purpose   

Feel free to call me an idiot for walking into this one. I agree. Believe me, I do. But it seems somehow wrong that a legal agreement signed in good faith is going to be applied this way.

   
 

Comments in line.. basically what agreement is in place for you to pay the 50% of repairs. If you've only paid mortgage for a few months, then your contributions aside from repairs may be small, so 5% perhaps not unreasonable. However need to understand the wording ie is that before / after mortgage balance is paid off? 

Also remember by selling, you'll both lose FTB status for the next property. Is there any way one can buy the other out and avoid another full purchase & related costs? 

Schwarzwald

You started a discussion on the same topic and question already in September (back then not for a friend…) and seemed to have found an agreement with your ex.

why not continue that thread instead of opening a new one?
what happened to that agreement?

in any case, really understanding the writing contract clauses and getting more facts around the repairs are needed to opine helpfully

Saviolo

Schwarzwald said:

You started a discussion on the same topic and question already in September (back then not for a friend…) and seemed to have found an agreement with your ex.
what happened to that agreement?

Basically - that's still in place, but given recent shifts in the housing market, that solution may not solve the problem after all.

_Penny_Dreadful

What kind of legal agreement are we talking about here?  A Deed of Trust? 

Did you take legal advice before signing it? 

What does it say about repairs or is it silent on the matter?

What has changed since your last thread other than the housing market?  You ex appeared to have accepted that should would be liable for the majority of the roof repairs and she was going to let the property out?  Has the rental market in the area shifted as most rental markets in the UK are hot, hot, hot right now?  I don't think your ex would be entitled to receive 100% of the rental income because you own a share of the property so even if you decide to let her receive your share HMRC will still classify it as your income, not hers.

You don't want to be tethered to an ex indefinitely.  I get the impression from your other thread that your ex can be a bit naive (blank cheque to the roofer) so she could easily be duped into taking a less than stellar tenant who stops paying rent leaving you paying the mortgage, that's assuming the pair of you can get consent to let in the first place.  It would be far simpler all round for the property to be sold, even if that means forcing the sale through the courts.  Yes that can be a lengthy, time-consuming process and can be expensive but any dilly-dallying on your ex's side means the judge could award your court costs to come out of her share of the equity.  It sounds harsh I know but the relationship is over and clean breaks work out better in the long run.

DullGreyGuy

Saviolo said:

I bought a house with my fiance and she put most of the money in

She is non-binary or do you mean fiancée?


What does the deed actually cover? Was it just the resale of the property or did it also cover mortgage and maintenance/improvement costs?

Laws to protect people on unfair contracts are mainly focused on where there is a disparity in power, ie you have a private individual contracting with a global corporation where clearly the little guy has little power to negotiate. As two equals there is far fewer protections as you were free to negotiate. 

I wont call you an idiot, it's not constructive and we all make mistakes, but an early separation whilst unfortunate was not an unforeseeable event that couldn't have been catered for.