Judge Wording on Enforcement Order, clarification needed. Thanks.

Idontknow76

Hi, I have had an enforcement hearing, to enforce the price and sale process of the former matrimonial home which has already been ordered forsale. (Have been through full contested divorce and financial order has been made at final hearing). 

The judge eventually produced a 'General Form of Judgement or Order' which included the following wording;

1. The price for sale of the Former Matrimonial Home shall be not less than £460,000.

2.The Respondent Wife shall co-operate with sale process and allow potential purchasers to inspect on reasonable notice. 

(The house has been forsale at £500,000 for nearly a year, which is way over what it should be, but ex refused to lower the asking price). 

My question

Does anyone know what this wording actually means in practical terms, and where to go from here. Am I missing something?

The original order states that the price of the property is to be set between the parties, or in default of agreement, determined by the court.

Does the enforcement wording mean that it should now be sold for £460,000, as this is now ‘determined by the court’? 

My ex and her solicitors are stating that it does not mean this, and is just a ‘minimum’, in which case it has enforced nothing.

I have already applied back to the court for clarification, and again asked for ‘sole conduct’ over the sale. 

What wording ‘should’ be included as it appears this wording is not sufficient by the judge?

What have others done to ensure the price is determined by the court and is actually effective? 

Thank you for any responses or insights.

molerat

As far as I can see all it means is that she must take reasonable steps to sell the property and for no less than £460K.  And as you have surmised, I can't see that practically it really enforces anything.

T.T.D

The judge is saying that she can’t under value the house or over value the house and must make reasonable steps to make the sale go smoothly.

If the house has been up for 500k and hasn’t sold because it’s obviously over priced and she had negative impact on prospective buyers offers, as in not working with the estate agent for viewers to see the property or not negotiating on the value at all, The judge has curtailed this from happening essentially but there isn’t any enforceable actions there in the judgment I can see.

The Judge has seemingly decided that £460.000 is also a low ball price too and has set a minimum value so that she cannot sell it at low price either. 

This is my opinion not legal advice.

If this has caused confusion then my next advice would be to apply to the court for a further directions hearing to clear up the matter with a judge or that judge to square away any interpretations that goes against the grain and spirit of his order.

tightauldgit

Reading the plain wording of that then no it doesn't really enforce anything. 

It seems to clearly state that any offer of less than £460k should be rejected, but doesn't say that any offer in excess of that amount must be accepted. Co-operating with the sale process only really means that she has to allow viewings and estate agent access etc. 

It's not clear from that order what happens when you receive an offer of £461k. Would her refusing to accept it be seen as not co-operating with the sales process? I expect all that would happen if she didn't agree is that you would end up back in court and you might get an order saying that she has to accept the offer, but by then your buyer would probably have pulled out anyway. 

I think in completely practical terms you're caught in the middle a little bit because courts are reluctant to stipulate specific details of sales when neither party really has control over the housing market and what offers you receive or don't receive but also the legal/court process is too slow to actually be able to respond to things like offers on houses in real time. 

Do you have an offer on the house? How far is it off her valuation? Is there potential to just pay her the difference to get the matter resolved? Or is she just being awkward to avoid selling? 

Idontknow76

Hi, thank you for all your comments. 

In regard to your questions; There is no offers as yet. She is to receive all the equity of the house regardless (as it was a needs based case, and I have been basically left with nothing!), the order also stated I should pay the mortgage and my own outgoings until the house is eventually sold(but gave no time frames or allowance for rise in interest rates as it is a tracker mortgage!).

She therefore has no incentive to sell as she is now left in a position where she is actually financially benefiting each month that it does not sell! It is an utterly ludicrous situation that I have been left in, with no end in sight as I head towards bankruptcy and homelessness.

this is all why I went back to the court hoping that some common sense or justice would prevail. Unfortunately as you quite rightly state the enforcement order is utterly useless. 

I have already responding to the court asking for clarification and sole control, still heard nothing. 

The whole thing is making me unwell, and I literally don’t know what else to do. I have contacted a solicitor at even more expense to try and see if there is anything they can do to help, but am unsure what else they can possibly do that I have not done already. 

I would be interested to know if anyone else who has been through such a situation and how they got it resolved? 

Thanks everyone! 

tightauldgit

I can't believe that a court has left you in that situation. Were you represented by a solicitor? Should they not really have pushed for at least clearer and more specific wording on the order? 

It seems pretty obvious that she won't budge on selling - why would she?

Idontknow76

Yes I was represented by solicitors and a barrister at a huge cost . In hindsight I have come to understand that they really did not do what I paid them to do. I am in the process of a complaint with them in regards to this. 

I obviously don’t want to use them again to try and enforce the order, hence why I did it myself. I am now looking to get another hopefully more competent solicitor on board. 

Like you say, I don’t understand how I have ended up in this situation. The system is a broken one. 

I can only keep going forward and hope that the court will eventually see what a position I have been left in and give me sole control over the sale, this is the only way it will be resolved. 

I have read of similar horror stories to mine where it has gone on for even longer than my situation. 

I would love to hear of other people’s experiences and how they were eventually able to get through to the other side. 

Thanks 

tightauldgit

If I'm being honest I'd be surprised if a court would give you sole control over the sale of a house that someone else is living in. On the face of it the solution is simple - the court can simply clarify that any offer over the minimum must be accepted. 

Failing that maybe the court can time limit your ongoing commitment to pay the mortgage but I don't know how you ended up in that situation in the first place so I don't really understand what the court was trying to achieve 

bigstevex

You don't mention it but are there children involved who also live at the property? 

Left with nothing is also very subjective given the limited information you've provided on sums of money involved/pensions and salaries/assets etc, you've focused solely on the detail about the house.