Brother in law is causing upset. Update, help needed please.

Malthusian

turnitround said:

My sister is able to support herself and is looking for a place to rent with the children and she is trying to get his agreement to sell the house telling him he can go and live in the caravan he is going to buy, lol. 

I don't understand why she is doing that when she already has a house to live in. (Unless she is in fear of her life and those of the children, and needs to disappear, in which case fair enough.) If they do sell before divorcing, then half of the money (presumably) has to go to him, and it would be a lot easier for that money to vanish into thin air, making the likelihood of getting a settlement from him much lower. As she is looking after the children there seems a reasonable chance she could be entitled to more than 50% of the house on divorce. What does her solicitor suggest?
The children will go through quite enough as it is without making them leave their home on top.
As for his claim, you have done what you can (as you aren't prepared to testify against him in public), so I would mark it as job done and forget about it. It's his problem and the insurer's problem, not yours or hers.

Sis is going to start divorce proceedings but seems hesitant about aggravating him more while this is going on.

I don't see how starting proceedings after he's lost would be any better. What if he loses and is then charged with fraud - would she then continue holding off while a criminal case is ongoing? It could drag on for years.

turnitround

The reason she wants to get rid of the house now is because if he gets done for fraud they may lose the house to pay the fees due for both sides in the court case. She is scared of losing everything.

RAS

Is the house a joint tenancy, in his name only etc?

Has your sister actually taken legal advice from someone who knows about proceeds of crime and protection for family? For what it's worth, my guess is that the current equity is not the proceeds of crime? She needs to check the real situation not panic.

Malthusian

turnitround said:

The reason she wants to get rid of the house now is because if he gets done for fraud they may lose the house to pay the fees due for both sides in the court case. She is scared of losing everything.

In the worst case scenario, the courts force them to sell the house so he can pay the insurer's costs, but she would keep her half of the proceeds. So she is no worse off than if she sells voluntarily.
And potentially better, because as long as the house is there, the courts could award her at least part of his share on divorce.
I am not a solicitor, but it sounds like she could receive some of his share of the property (given she is looking after the children) and she is trying to throw that away in a panic. She is trying to throw away the high ground because she is scared of losing the high ground. It is understandable but not a good idea.
I agree with RAS.

TBagpuss

She should get the divorce started. It takes at least 7 months so the sooner the better, and it also means that she can start the ball rolling in relation to the financial settlement which she'll need in order to sell the house.

Suggest she doesn't look for anywhere to rent at present. Unless they have a huge mortgage, it's likely to be cheaper for her to stay in the house until financial issues are resolved. (and if the mortgage is in joint names, she will still be liable for it whether she is in the house or not, and if it goes into arrears then both her and his credit will be affected)  

Dhe needs to log any threats he has made with the police and if he trys to return to the house and she is scared, call the police and then apply for an injunction.  in the mean time, you should contact the police and log the threats he made to you - that way, there will be a record of those in the event that there are any later court proceedings such as an injunction or issues over the children. 

JReacher1

Not sure phoning his work was a good idea. Not really sure how that helps anybody really 

Malthusian

JReacher1 said:

Not sure phoning his work was a good idea.

The OP phoned the brother-in-law's previous place of work, the one where he had the accident. I.e. the people his brother-in-law is trying to defraud. 
(We have correctly assumed they will have insurance, but the old employer would still lose out from any excess / higher insurance costs.)
The BIL gave up his current work voluntarily in an attempt to stop creating rope to hang himself with.

JReacher1

Malthusian said:

JReacher1 said:

Not sure phoning his work was a good idea.

The OP phoned the brother-in-law's previous place of work, the one where he had the accident. I.e. the people his brother-in-law is trying to defraud. 
(We have correctly assumed they will have insurance, but the old employer would still lose out from any excess / higher insurance costs.)
The BIL gave up his current work voluntarily in an attempt to stop creating rope to hang himself with.

Still seems an odd thing to do. 

An anonymous phone call telling a company that a previous employee is attempting to defraud them is odd. I don’t see what benefit the OP is getting out of doing this. 

turnitround

Well it seems crime does pay. The other side have made an offer and it is going to be a very nice caravan! He is also going to Vegas with his brother. Meanwhile my sister has seen a solicitor and is filing for divorce.

thegreenone

Will the payment will form part of the divorce settlement?