Splitting equity and arrears help please!

tightauldgit

monty-doggy said:

silvercar said:

The dangers of going to court for a split to be determined would be that she would say she needs somewhere to house the children (true), so needs a greater share of the equity. She could also point to the fact that leaving the home by sale or repossession leaves her homeless, whereas you have a home, so she needs more equity in order to get a suitable home.

This was my worry however if she had actually paid the mortgage (at one point up until last year it was only £230 a month!) she wouldn’t be in this situation. Regardless of how much equity she gets she can’t buy a property as she has zero credit rating. She will be forced into renting or looking for a council house 

I have not been able to move on with housing needs. I’m forced to rent as a lodger as I can’t afford full rent because of the maintenance I pay for my children. 14 years of defaults has left my credit rating in a mess too. 

None of which really changes the reality though. Which is why if she is agreeing to sell and give you 50% of the proceeds then I would say you agree to it and get it done. It's only going to get worse if it ends in dispute. 

monty-doggy

tightauldgit said:

monty-doggy said:

silvercar said:

The dangers of going to court for a split to be determined would be that she would say she needs somewhere to house the children (true), so needs a greater share of the equity. She could also point to the fact that leaving the home by sale or repossession leaves her homeless, whereas you have a home, so she needs more equity in order to get a suitable home.

This was my worry however if she had actually paid the mortgage (at one point up until last year it was only £230 a month!) she wouldn’t be in this situation. Regardless of how much equity she gets she can’t buy a property as she has zero credit rating. She will be forced into renting or looking for a council house 

I have not been able to move on with housing needs. I’m forced to rent as a lodger as I can’t afford full rent because of the maintenance I pay for my children. 14 years of defaults has left my credit rating in a mess too. 

None of which really changes the reality though. Which is why if she is agreeing to sell and give you 50% of the proceeds then I would say you agree to it and get it done. It's only going to get worse if it ends in dispute. 

She won’t want To give me 50% but that’s a whole other story! I expect a fight on my hands really! 

tightauldgit

What are the bank saying about all of this? Have you given you a timeframe to get the arrears sorted? You said repossession was starting but there is a process they will go through. 

You're a little bit screwed to be honest because if she's willing to play hardball she can just let the house be repossessed. As could you of course. So it's in everyone's interests to sell and split the proceeds ASAP. 

monty-doggy

tightauldgit said:

What are the bank saying about all of this? Have you given you a timeframe to get the arrears sorted? You said repossession was starting but there is a process they will go through. 

You're a little bit screwed to be honest because if she's willing to play hardball she can just let the house be repossessed. As could you of course. So it's in everyone's interests to sell and split the proceeds ASAP. 

The house was actually repossessed in 2019 but covid put a halt to her being evicted. Since then she’s played every card possible to have it put on hold including ‘health issues’ ‘mental health issues’ and various others. She’s had the account put on hold so many times. In the last 12 months she has made 2 token payments of £100 each. 

The mortgage company told us they will let her make an offer to pay the arrears and stay in the house right up until the point of eviction as it’s the last thing they want. 

It’s all gotten a bit more complicated since I first posted as she has now approached me saying she wants to sell and wants 100% of the equity. And if I don’t agree she’s Taking it to court. 

tightauldgit

Well obviously you'd be stupid to agree to that so I guess it will go to court. As I said though, whether the house has been repossessed by then who knows? 

Obviously her getting 100% of the equity is not really better than it getting repossessed anyway so she's being rather ridiculous. 

Are there other assets to consider?

SusieT

At least she is now at the point where selling is on the table, and even if you can get her to sell and give you 40% without court (which could easily cost you more than the 10% you would be letting her have) that would be a way out at this point, but she is really dragging things out and making it a lot harder for you. Such a shame people behave like that, but I hope you can get her to see sense without having to go to court.

silvercar

monty-doggy said:

tightauldgit said:

What are the bank saying about all of this? Have you given you a timeframe to get the arrears sorted? You said repossession was starting but there is a process they will go through. 

You're a little bit screwed to be honest because if she's willing to play hardball she can just let the house be repossessed. As could you of course. So it's in everyone's interests to sell and split the proceeds ASAP. 

The house was actually repossessed in 2019 but covid put a halt to her being evicted. Since then she’s played every card possible to have it put on hold including ‘health issues’ ‘mental health issues’ and various others. She’s had the account put on hold so many times. In the last 12 months she has made 2 token payments of £100 each. 

The mortgage company told us they will let her make an offer to pay the arrears and stay in the house right up until the point of eviction as it’s the last thing they want. 

It’s all gotten a bit more complicated since I first posted as she has now approached me saying she wants to sell and wants 100% of the equity. And if I don’t agree she’s Taking it to court. 

I suspect it hasn’t actually been repossessed. If it had then the lender would have taken ownership and there would be no mortgage obligations. Instead the arrears would build up with interest. If they last thing they want is eviction, then they haven’t repossessed.

tightauldgit

SusieT said:

At least she is now at the point where selling is on the table, and even if you can get her to sell and give you 40% without court (which could easily cost you more than the 10% you would be letting her have) that would be a way out at this point, but she is really dragging things out and making it a lot harder for you. Such a shame people behave like that, but I hope you can get her to see sense without having to go to court.

This is what I hate about the system as it stands, it just encourages people to be completely unreasonable without any downside. By asking for 100% getting 40 or 30 or even 20 seems better than getting nothing so people start to feel pressured to compromise towards the unreasonable. And when it gets to court the judge almost never says 'you were being a !!!!!! so you're getting less than your fair share' so there's nothing lost by just being unreasonable. Equally costs are almost never awarded against parties forcing it to court unless its something completely egregious. 

My ex-wife did exactly the same - demanding 100% of the equity and refusal to negotiate. She got 50% in court. I had to pay thousands in legal fees to get the same outcome that I had offered her 3 years previous in a settlement.  

tightauldgit

silvercar said:

monty-doggy said:

tightauldgit said:

What are the bank saying about all of this? Have you given you a timeframe to get the arrears sorted? You said repossession was starting but there is a process they will go through. 

You're a little bit screwed to be honest because if she's willing to play hardball she can just let the house be repossessed. As could you of course. So it's in everyone's interests to sell and split the proceeds ASAP. 

The house was actually repossessed in 2019 but covid put a halt to her being evicted. Since then she’s played every card possible to have it put on hold including ‘health issues’ ‘mental health issues’ and various others. She’s had the account put on hold so many times. In the last 12 months she has made 2 token payments of £100 each. 

The mortgage company told us they will let her make an offer to pay the arrears and stay in the house right up until the point of eviction as it’s the last thing they want. 

It’s all gotten a bit more complicated since I first posted as she has now approached me saying she wants to sell and wants 100% of the equity. And if I don’t agree she’s Taking it to court. 

I suspect it hasn’t actually been repossessed. If it had then the lender would have taken ownership and there would be no mortgage obligations. Instead the arrears would build up with interest. If they last thing they want is eviction, then they haven’t repossessed.

Yeah, it wasn't clear but I presumed they meant the bank had started the process but had to put it on hold due to COVID. I think if a court order had actually been issued then they would have taken steps to action it by now. I've not been through the process but I did get close to it. I think generally banks want to avoid repossessing houses wherever possible - they'd much rather just get paid - but at some stage they do act. I guess while the value of the house exceeds the amount of the mortgage they feel they can hold off but if they don't see any prospect of getting paid they wont let it roll on indefinitely. 

SusieT

tightauldgit said:

SusieT said:

At least she is now at the point where selling is on the table, and even if you can get her to sell and give you 40% without court (which could easily cost you more than the 10% you would be letting her have) that would be a way out at this point, but she is really dragging things out and making it a lot harder for you. Such a shame people behave like that, but I hope you can get her to see sense without having to go to court.

This is what I hate about the system as it stands, it just encourages people to be completely unreasonable without any downside. By asking for 100% getting 40 or 30 or even 20 seems better than getting nothing so people start to feel pressured to compromise towards the unreasonable. And when it gets to court the judge almost never says 'you were being a !!!!!! so you're getting less than your fair share' so there's nothing lost by just being unreasonable. Equally costs are almost never awarded against parties forcing it to court unless its something completely egregious. 

My ex-wife did exactly the same - demanding 100% of the equity and refusal to negotiate. She got 50% in court. I had to pay thousands in legal fees to get the same outcome that I had offered her 3 years previous in a settlement.  

The system does need a change, even if it meant a "simple" way to go to court without using lawyers it would be a step forwards, but the costs are crazy. I just hope your ex wife had equal costs and also lost what she would have received with your previous offer.