relationship breakup and house
Discussion
Red 4 said:
You appear to be basing your opinion on the fact that the op used the phrase "our first house" and little else.
...
No, I am basing my opinion on the totality of the facts as stated (and please pay attention to the facts: the OP has not yet paid the ex) and, importantly, well established case law. Your opinion is based on, er... what exactly? ...
Anyway, OP, you can choose between advice from real lawyers (there are two or three on on this thread) or advice from Red4, qualifications and experience unknown (if he is a lawyer, which I doubt, but you never know, he seems a bit out of date on his knowledge of the relevant case law, and, to be blunt, on some elementary principles of equity that he should have learned at law school. Oh well, perhaps he's just a "make it up as you go along" internet expert after all).
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 14th August 14:16
Breadvan72 said:
Liable to whom? The OP and his ex agreed between themselves who paid what. All financial matters between them depend on the agreement that they made expressly or that is to be inferred from their conduct. It sounds like the agreement was not "you must pay X proportion of expenses". She paid what she paid, and her interest in the property relates to that.
I'm not at all grumpy, and if you think that my post above indicates rage, you must live a quiet life, but I am not sure why the apparent urge to make something that's quite simple appear complex.
I totally agree.I'm not at all grumpy, and if you think that my post above indicates rage, you must live a quiet life, but I am not sure why the apparent urge to make something that's quite simple appear complex.
Looking at it from a moral perspective, the OP would have never been able to buy the house without Grandad stepping in. He did, and as such, the OP's made £20k or so nominally. As such, IMHO if he walks away with paying back Grandpops and Granddaughter everything they've paid to date then he's still in pocket.
When I was a sixth form student I had a weekend job at PC World. I saw all sorts of numptyism from managers, and one stroke of genius:
There was a raving chap at the customer service desk, making a scene. He had bought a £1500 PC last week (remember how much PCs cost in 1998!?), and he came back to buy some accessories that day to find his PC was now £200 cheaper. He demanded £200 at customer services in increasing volume until the store manager came.
He ranted at the store manager for a good few minutes whilst the manager simply kept quiet and listened, and when he had stopped, the manager calmly asked him one question:
"If your PC had gone up in price by £200, how much of that £200 would you be giving me today?"
The bloke paused for a second or two, raised his eyebrows and held out his hand to shake the managers hand and apologised.
It's human nature to hold onto what we've 'lost' and instinctively see it emotionally. That clouds what is actually fair. If I were the OP, the question I would be asking the other half would be along the lines of:
"If the house had gone down in value by £20,000 what proportion of the £20,000 would you be paying me now?" In her heart of hearts she will know it is sweet FA and he'd be stuck with the house and the negative equity.
I'd then give her, and the grandad 7 days to consider without prejudice a full and final settlement of everything they'd paid to date back.
Red 4 said:
You appear to be basing your opinion on the fact that the op used the phrase "our first house" and little else.
The mortgage is in the op's name. The ex wasn't on the mortgage or the deeds.
The op has already returned her money. That is more than fair. I'd tell her to whistle for anything else.
It isn't as simple as totting up the exact amounts paid in and which signature is on which document. You need to consider the overriding intention between them when they bought the property; did the OP buy the property with the intention that he always retain the majority of the value in it? That would be an unusual position for someone so committed to a relationship that they purchase a house with the express intention of living in it as a couple, presumably into perpetuity.The mortgage is in the op's name. The ex wasn't on the mortgage or the deeds.
The op has already returned her money. That is more than fair. I'd tell her to whistle for anything else.
It's also pretty natural that there are differences in financial power between two people in a relationship. If a wife never works and stays at home in a 20 year marriage, never contributing financially to the mortgage, do you believe she is then entitled to nothing in the event of a split?
BobToc said:
Red 4 said:
The op has already returned her money.
He's done no such thing. I admire BV's persistence here, I'd have left the pub lawyers to their own devices if I was offering essentially free legal advice and having it thrown back in my face.Breadvan72 said:
No, I am basing my opinion on the totality of the facts as stated (and please pay attention to the facts: the OP has not yet paid the ex) and, importantly, well established case law. Your opinion is based on, er... what exactly?
Anyway, OP, you can choose between advice from real lawyers (there are two or three on on this thread) or advice from Red4, qualifications and experience unknown (if he is a lawyer, which I doubt, but you never know, he seems a bit out of date on his knowledge of the relevant case law, and, to be blunt, on some elementary principles of equity that he should have learned at law school. Oh well, perhaps he's just a "make it up as you go along" internet expert after all).
I'm not a lawyer. I never said I was. Why do you presume I am (or said I was)?.Anyway, OP, you can choose between advice from real lawyers (there are two or three on on this thread) or advice from Red4, qualifications and experience unknown (if he is a lawyer, which I doubt, but you never know, he seems a bit out of date on his knowledge of the relevant case law, and, to be blunt, on some elementary principles of equity that he should have learned at law school. Oh well, perhaps he's just a "make it up as you go along" internet expert after all).
Edited by Breadvan72 on Thursday 14th August 14:16
I have dealt with many lawyers though and I have found this - put 3 of them in a room and you will get 3 different opinions.
I would not take your opinion as fact on this matter. I understand the principles you refer to - I just think you are giving bad advice (and rolling over far too easily).
Red 4 said:
I would not take your opinion as fact on this matter. I understand the principles you refer to - I just think you are giving bad advice (and rolling over far too easily).
I would be very interested to read breadvan72's analysis of what is an equitable settlement given the facts and numbers stated in this thread. It does not seem too hard to ballpark enumerate. I cannot fault any of the principles set out. I also feel that until such point as the claimant makes a formal claim rather than a phone call, any response or payment is dangerous and naiive.Breadvan72 said:
OK, Mr amateur expert, please state your reasons by reference to established legal principles. Detailed citations from case law supporting your opinion optional (I will cut you some slack on that, to save you looking for something that isn't there).
Do you have many return clients ? I would very much doubt it given your obtuse and Mr Know-it-all attitude.I'm 100% certain I'd be heading for the door if you spoke to me that way in person and would not trust you to represent me in court (personalities count for alot in court, I have found).
Breadvan - you know more than me on this subject. You are an expert. But there are other experts. And I think you are waving the white flag far too early.
op, go speak to your solicitor and outline where your at and see what they suggest. i think you will be fine, might have to pay her off a bit more than you want, but if your paying the mortgage and can prove then i dont think she will go the route of solicitor and expense for a large solicitor bill for f
k all.
k all.Red4, you are not my client. I am being blunt, as I always am with you pub lawyer types, because the OP could be misled by people like you who blithely and irresponsibly dish out duff legal advice (especially when it is advice that the OP probably wants to hear, and thus tempting to follow), rather than advice based on the real world probabilities of what a court would decide.
If, as you claim, you know what the applicable legal principles are then you must also know that on the facts as stated those principles point clearly to the ex having a claim (albeit probably a financially modest claim). No one here is suggesting that the ex has a half share in the house.
If, as you claim, you know what the applicable legal principles are then you must also know that on the facts as stated those principles point clearly to the ex having a claim (albeit probably a financially modest claim). No one here is suggesting that the ex has a half share in the house.
Red 4 said:
Breadvan - you know more than me on this subject. You are an expert. But there are other experts. And I think you are waving the white flag far too early.
What the law says and what people agree to settle for aren't necessarily the same thing. The op has already agreed to return the deposit of £4k, personally I'd offer £7k and hope that would make the problem go away. The last thing anyone wants is a protracted legal dispute over relatively trivial amounts of money, especially when legal costs could be substantial.Red 4 said:
Do you have many return clients ? I would very much doubt it given your obtuse and Mr Know-it-all attitude.
I'm 100% certain I'd be heading for the door if you spoke to me that way in person and would not trust you to represent me in court (personalities count for alot in court, I have found).
Breadvan - you know more than me on this subject. You are an expert. But there are other experts. And I think you are waving the white flag far too early.
Why do you call it "waving the white flag"?I'm 100% certain I'd be heading for the door if you spoke to me that way in person and would not trust you to represent me in court (personalities count for alot in court, I have found).
Breadvan - you know more than me on this subject. You are an expert. But there are other experts. And I think you are waving the white flag far too early.
House was bought with the intent of it being a shared dwelling.
Purchase was only possible due to the cash provided by partner's grandparents.
To now say "it's all mine" is selfish and imo morally wrong.
AW111 said:
Purchase was only possible due to the cash provided by partner's grandparents.
Actually this is unknown. All we know is that OP put 8k into the deposit and that there was a gift of 4k from the grandparents. It's also never been specified whether the gift was to the OP's ex- and she then put it forward or the gift was to the couple.Breadvan72 said:
Red4, you are not my client. I am being blunt, as I always am with you pub lawyer types, because the OP could be misled by people like you who blithely and irresponsibly dish out duff legal advice (especially when it is advice that the OP probably wants to hear, and thus tempting to follow), rather than advice based on the real world probabilities of what a court would decide.
If, as you claim, you know what the applicable legal principles are then you must also know that on the facts as stated those principles point clearly to the ex having a claim (albeit probably a financially modest claim). No one here is suggesting that the ex has a half share in the house.
I have not given out any legal advice on this subject. You are mistaken. I have given my own opinion - and that opinion is that I would not take your advice as gospel.If, as you claim, you know what the applicable legal principles are then you must also know that on the facts as stated those principles point clearly to the ex having a claim (albeit probably a financially modest claim). No one here is suggesting that the ex has a half share in the house.
I would seek a second opinion.
Once again, you show your arrogance and Know-It-All attitude. You just can't help yourself can you ... you resort to calling me a "pub lawyer type". FYI I have legal training and experience, just not in the area of civil law.
The reality is that the sums involved in this case are probably - note the word probably - so small that any legal action is unlikely.
The up-front costs will probably outweigh any financial settlement (assuming the ex will have to pay costs and will not get legal aid - again I am not an expert on legal aid.
Let's see your projections for costs/ settlement figures and make the op a little better informed.
IE. Give him some figures. That is what this is all about.
Leave the one-up-manship aside (if you can). Tell the op what he may or may not be faced with.
Edited by Red 4 on Thursday 14th August 15:08
The phrase 'our first house' is probably the wrong one. Rather 'our first home together'. When I was looking at houses I was buying either way to get away from the parents house. Whether she was ready to move in or not. She was unsure if she wanted the financial responsibility before she started the job or that we were ready as a couple. I said I would be buying the house either way, she can move in if she wants to at whatever point and contribute towards bills for the time being, but i'll pay the mortgage and council tax.
Her grandad gave me the £4k as the mortgage i could get was only just short. The money was a gift but I did always have the intention (whether we were together or not) to pay him it back as I was grateful he was helping me out. At this point she hadn't even decided whether she was moving in so this was pretty good of him, it was a gift to me, not to her.
When she did decide to move in the same time I did, she even told friends 'i'm moving into Dan's new house'. Any items for the house she bought were taken when she moved out.
It's only now, through bitterness she's back at her parents home where she hated and the circumstances behind the breakup that she's decided she's entitled.
I know it's hard to work out exactly but surely the money she gave me can be seen as for what she used in terms of utilities, Sky TV/broadband etc. She has not lost out, like some say, giving back the money she paid essentially means she lived scott free. She never parted with money to move into the house so is left no worse off than when she started.
Her grandad gets his cash back meaning he is no worse off.
Maybe there would be a cheaper way, there is obviously a more expensive route, but this seems to not cost me a great deal, and it's the quickest way to keep them happy and frankly move on with my life.
Genuine solicitors, I'm grateful for the advice by the way.
Her grandad gave me the £4k as the mortgage i could get was only just short. The money was a gift but I did always have the intention (whether we were together or not) to pay him it back as I was grateful he was helping me out. At this point she hadn't even decided whether she was moving in so this was pretty good of him, it was a gift to me, not to her.
When she did decide to move in the same time I did, she even told friends 'i'm moving into Dan's new house'. Any items for the house she bought were taken when she moved out.
It's only now, through bitterness she's back at her parents home where she hated and the circumstances behind the breakup that she's decided she's entitled.
I know it's hard to work out exactly but surely the money she gave me can be seen as for what she used in terms of utilities, Sky TV/broadband etc. She has not lost out, like some say, giving back the money she paid essentially means she lived scott free. She never parted with money to move into the house so is left no worse off than when she started.
Her grandad gets his cash back meaning he is no worse off.
Maybe there would be a cheaper way, there is obviously a more expensive route, but this seems to not cost me a great deal, and it's the quickest way to keep them happy and frankly move on with my life.
Genuine solicitors, I'm grateful for the advice by the way.
I'm no legal eagle.
But surely to goodness, the thing to do here is nothing. Wait and see if the hot air she is blowing is backed up with her engaging a solicitor. If she does then deal with it. As I see this at the moment, there are a lot of ifs and buts but nothing substantial anywhere.
OP, you seem to have the financial history well sorted. Just sit back and present the figures to the court if it ever comes to it - which I very much doubt. But this being PH, everyone will tell you to employ a barrister right now, and nuke her from orbit.
Sit back and wait.
But surely to goodness, the thing to do here is nothing. Wait and see if the hot air she is blowing is backed up with her engaging a solicitor. If she does then deal with it. As I see this at the moment, there are a lot of ifs and buts but nothing substantial anywhere.
OP, you seem to have the financial history well sorted. Just sit back and present the figures to the court if it ever comes to it - which I very much doubt. But this being PH, everyone will tell you to employ a barrister right now, and nuke her from orbit.
Sit back and wait.
Red 4 said:
Breadvan72 said:
OK, Mr amateur expert, please state your reasons by reference to established legal principles. Detailed citations from case law supporting your opinion optional (I will cut you some slack on that, to save you looking for something that isn't there).
Do you have many return clients ? I would very much doubt it given your obtuse and Mr Know-it-all attitude.I'm 100% certain I'd be heading for the door if you spoke to me that way in person and would not trust you to represent me in court (personalities count for alot in court, I have found).
Indeed, he could have very easily made you look silly suggesting he doesn't get repeat clients, and chose not to.
I don't think anyone posts on here the same way they deal with their clients.... Including yourself maybe?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff