PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Buying out my ex - disagreeing over Declaration of Trust
Comments
-
tryingtobemoresavvy wrote: »Thanks everyone, all this advice and support means a lot. I thought we were doing the right thing at the time by getting a DoT but have now learned that you need to get legal advice on your legal advice! I have got some recommendations for other solicitors who've done this kind of thing for family/friends so I will speak to an independent solicitor and find out what to do next. I will tell him I am not agreeing to anything until I do this, so he just has to wait.
And he says he refuses to move out until he 'gets what he deserves'. I think he deserves something quite different to £48,000!
:T The tables have turned in a few hours! :T
Do you have a deck of playing cards? Patience 'old skool'.
tryingtobemoresavvy wrote: »I really don't want to move out because we have a lot of animals, none of which he wants, so I need to be sure they are taken care of, plus the house is full of my furniture and possessions (previously bought or inherited from my late granny), there's actually only a few big-ticket items we bought together as part of the equal-split improvements. So there's so much in here that means something to me and I really worry about it leaving it all with him.
Makes complete sense.
I am intrigued by "a lot of animals"! Declutterbug-in-progress.⭐️⭐️⭐️ ⭐️⭐️0 -
This doesn't look ambiguous to me, but sadly the OP's partner has the DoT on his side.
You take the gross proceeds of the sale, deduct all the costs of selling, deduct the mortgage, and what's left is the net proceeds, which are split 57/43. Silly solicitors.tryingtobemoresavvy wrote: »1. Me and him shall hold the Property on trust to sell it with power by unanimous agreement to postpone sale and hold the net proceeds of the sale, transfer or such other disposal upon trust (after the deductions of all legal costs, estate agent fees, redemption of mortgage(s), charges and all other incidental costs in respect of the transaction) upon trust from themselves in the following percentages:
1.1 Him: 43.05%
1.2 Me 56.95%0 -
Clearly the DOT is flawed, you would only own 57/43 when the mortgage is paid off.
It should have said that out of the net proceeds you get 14% of the gross sale price (which is what your deposit bought) and the rest is split 50/50.
Whether you have a claim for negligence will probably depend on exactly how you instructed the solicitors who drew up the DOT.
If you said we would like a DOT which split our ownership 57/43 then that's what you got but if you said here are all the facts draw up a fair deed of trust then maybe you have a claim.
There is no ambiguity in the DOT your ex gets 43% of the net sale proceeds whether that's fair or not. It's quite likely if it came to a court case they would win.0 -
This is totally new to me as I have always stipulated our houses are 50/50 between my wife and I even though she pays nothing towards the deposit or mortgage.
However.....
This seems overly complicated like most things these days. A simple legal document stating one of two options shouldn’t get messy.
1. Deposit of X to be paid to Mrs from final sale (after fees) then the remainder of the money spit 50/50
Or
2. Mrs gets 57% and Mr gets 43% to take into account the extra paid originally in the deposit.
Option 1 is the fairest and the most simplistic but it looks like the OP didn’t go that route.
Option two is Russian roulette where house price rise and falls dictate who the winner is. At the moment it seems Mr comes off better. If house prices went up significantly over the time of the OPs partnership, she would be the winner.
The negative feeling should not be aimed at the partner as you both opted to gamble by choosing option 2. Win some, lose some.0 -
I don't have any advice on the DoT, but I'd like to say, don't let him bully you into paying him off and being left with the problem. (Also, I don't know if I would be going off of the EA's valuation, as that could be overinflated.) It sounds like he's making you feel like you're making him stay by not paying him his share. That's not true - he is entirely free to move out whenever he wishes. My last point is on the "terrible things"... it's difficult to say from your post, but is he being threatening? I know that it can be unpleasant after a breakup, but that's different from one person making threats. If you are scared of him and what he might do, there is help available for that and you should definitely seek it.0
-
I would still go down the route of arguing the valuation - if the property is only sellable by auction with the current dispute it is worth signficantly less. He can either take a share based on the current valuation or wait until the issue is resolved and you can get a decent valuation ( I would get at least 3 estate agents with to be sold in 6 weeks ).
Im afraid that the DOT seems unambigous to me0 -
tryingtobemoresavvy wrote: »And he says he refuses to move out until he 'gets what he deserves'. I think he deserves something quite different to £48,000!
And you should not do anything until he agrees to give you your deposit back0 -
Thanks everyone. I have not yet heard back from the previous solicitor who did the Declaration of Trust, but I've located an independent lawyer and will follow up with them for advice.
We just provided the relative contribution figures to the solicitor who drafted the DoT, all wording was done by them. I didn't realise it needed to be checked separately, now I know...
I can take on the mortgage by myself but I agree I'll also have to pay all the costs of sale which seems unfair as I want to sell as soon as the party wall business is concluded.
To note - the way the DoT s worded doesn't give me a larger increase in profit than him if the house value goes up - it's already gone up in value potentially by £40,000 and his 'share' of that profit according to the DoT is far in excess of mine when you consider the deposit I put in. And that discrepancy remains however much it skyrockets. The discrepancy only reduces as he pays off more of the mortgage - I only get that proportionate increase in value reflecting my larger investment IF we've paid all the mortgage! So something is fundamentally wrong with the wording. I would have been perfectly happy with taking out the deposit and then a 50:50 split of everything else, but the solicitor said this was the standard way of doing things given our contributions...0 -
The wording of your DoT is bizarre if it features predefined percentages? I have a DoT with my partner (a very similar arrangement perchance) and ours is worded as follows;
2.1 The First Owner and the Second Owner declare that they hold the Property, its net proceeds of sale and its net rents and profits on trust for themselves as tenants in common in the percentage shares specified in:
2.1.1 Clause 3 for the First Owner; and
2.1.2 Clause 4 for the Second Owner.
3. FIRST OWNER'S SHARE
3.1 The First Owner's percentage share shall be calculated by dividing the total of:
3.1.1 the First Owner's Initial Contribution; and
3.1.2 all sums paid by the First Owner in respect of the Expenditure,
3.2 by the Total Expenditure and then multiplying the result by 100.
4. SECOND OWNER'S SHARE
4.1 The Second Owner's percentage share shall be calculated by dividing the total of:
4.1.1 the Second Owner's Initial Contribution; and
4.1.2 all sums paid by the Second Owner in respect of the Expenditure,
4.2 by the Total Expenditure and then multiplying the result by 100.
That way, the amount returned reflects the initial deposits. It's almost criminal to assign a flat percentage like your solicitor has...Know what you don't0 -
Hi Exodi - thanks for sharing your DoT clauses. That's actually almost exactly how our percentage shares are calculated! It's the initial contribution + expenditure (including share of mortgage) / total that gave those percentages. That gives him 43% and me 57%. The problem for me is actually in how that percentage share is then implemented, whether it's before mortgage remaining or after, or if it applies to equity. As I have discovered, the only way that percentage works to return my initial deposit + proportionate shares, is before mortgage, otherwise he gets a disproportionately greater share far beyond his contribution. How does yours define this?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards