relationship breakup and house
Discussion
Red 4 said:
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
Soov535 said:
Given that Breaders is a well respected (!) barrister of many years experience, I'd say he is entitled to be one up on all of us.
No doubt.But the impression I got (rightly or wrongly) was that he was suggesting the op should make a financial settlement with his ex. over and above the return of the deposit to the grandparents.
Given the current situation (legal principles aside) I would suggest that is unwise.
Red 4 said:
But the impression I got (rightly or wrongly) was that he was suggesting the op should make a financial settlement with his ex. over and above the return of the deposit to the grandparents.
His original comment was:grumpy lawyer said:
A sensible solution if the claim is pressed would be to offer (without prejudice) to buy out any interest for a fixed sum. You might calculate the proportions paid in by each party up to the split, and offer a percentage of value based on that proportion. It will probably be a modest number.
Though the deteriorating signal to noise ratio on these threads tends to mask clear statements quite quickly.Red 4 said:
FYI I have legal training and experience, just not in the area of civil law.
You're a policeman, aren't you? This alleged training & experience would therefore presumably be in criminal matters?Repeat after me: "It's a civil matter, sir".
Your alleged training & experience in this is zero- any training in other matters isn't really going to help. BV's training & experience are AIUI in exactly this, so why not listen & learn? I look at these threads as a free education.
I had a friend that bought a house with a now ex gf, the sale of her house provided the deposit for the property, the friend contributed to the mortgage and paid for improvements to the house ( it could be argued that the sale price was only achieved due to the improvements he paid for !!) - Fast forward a year and the gf decided to move out to decide her future(WTF?).... After due consideration , she decided to come back on certain terms, if these were met, great ! Sadly bf decided 'new ' terms were not pleasing so elbowed the gf, but decided to try and keep the house, question now is does he have to pay back the deposit from the original house that provided the deposit ? It could be argued that he was entitled to some recompense for the expenses incurred in refurbing the original purchase????
Your account of the facts is a tad unclear. For example, to which house did your friend make improvements ? I assume the current house, but you refer to his work enhancing the sale price, and presumably only the previous house has been sold. Perhaps you mean that his work has enhanced the value of the current house.
There is a distinction between legal title and beneficial ownership. Who has legal title to the house? If both have legal title, the starting presumption is that each has an equal beneficial share in the house, but this can be displaced by contrary evidence. If only one has legal title, the extent of the beneficial interest owned by the other party depends on what the parties agreed and often on what they did, as agreement may be inferred from conduct.
There is a distinction between legal title and beneficial ownership. Who has legal title to the house? If both have legal title, the starting presumption is that each has an equal beneficial share in the house, but this can be displaced by contrary evidence. If only one has legal title, the extent of the beneficial interest owned by the other party depends on what the parties agreed and often on what they did, as agreement may be inferred from conduct.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 15th August 08:10
Red 4 said:
No doubt.
But the impression I got (rightly or wrongly) was that he was suggesting the op should make a financial settlement with his ex. over and above the return of the deposit to the grandparents.
Given the current situation (legal principles aside) I would suggest that is unwise.
I would suggest it would be most unwise to follow the advice or opinion of anybody but Breadvan.But the impression I got (rightly or wrongly) was that he was suggesting the op should make a financial settlement with his ex. over and above the return of the deposit to the grandparents.
Given the current situation (legal principles aside) I would suggest that is unwise.
Rude-Boy is in fact much more of a land law expert than I am. I think that he and I agree as to what the legal principles are, and neither of us would say "legal principles aside", because if the dispute goes further it will have to be resolved by reference to legal principles, and not by reference to the gut feelings of some car enthusiasts.
The key issue may be the tactics to be employed. Do nothing, or make a fair offer now? My preference is for the latter, but the OP could just wait and see how things progress. My concern would be that the ex becomes entrenched in her position and the dispute becomes disproportionately expensive and time consuming. I would seek an early and fair settlement.
I am not suggesting that the OP offers a large amount, and I would suggest that he seeks agreement that any settlement credits him the amount already paid to the grandparents. I can't suggest a figure, as I don't know enough about the value of the house. I agree with Rude-Boy that we are probably looking at a figure under £10K.
The key issue may be the tactics to be employed. Do nothing, or make a fair offer now? My preference is for the latter, but the OP could just wait and see how things progress. My concern would be that the ex becomes entrenched in her position and the dispute becomes disproportionately expensive and time consuming. I would seek an early and fair settlement.
I am not suggesting that the OP offers a large amount, and I would suggest that he seeks agreement that any settlement credits him the amount already paid to the grandparents. I can't suggest a figure, as I don't know enough about the value of the house. I agree with Rude-Boy that we are probably looking at a figure under £10K.
In seems fairly obvious that this was a joint venture, and in principle it seems pretty easy to see that both parties contributed to the overall household costs. Importantly, the venture could not have gone ahead without the contributions from both parties.
In principle, at least, the common sense approach would be to add up (or estimate) the total amount of money brought to the table by each party, including everything that you can think of: deposit contributions, mortgage, interest, food & groceries, repair & maintenance, etc etc. Add an allowance for intangible contributions such as cooking, cleaning etc. Then, when the house is sold (or get an estate agent's valuation if you're not selling it), distribute the increase in value according to each party's proportion of contribution. Nobody gets a refund of contributions, but the proportion of contributions decides how much of the equity increase you get.
I would do the above calculation, and write a clear, polite letter to the ex explaining my reasoning and making an offer.
In principle, at least, the common sense approach would be to add up (or estimate) the total amount of money brought to the table by each party, including everything that you can think of: deposit contributions, mortgage, interest, food & groceries, repair & maintenance, etc etc. Add an allowance for intangible contributions such as cooking, cleaning etc. Then, when the house is sold (or get an estate agent's valuation if you're not selling it), distribute the increase in value according to each party's proportion of contribution. Nobody gets a refund of contributions, but the proportion of contributions decides how much of the equity increase you get.
I would do the above calculation, and write a clear, polite letter to the ex explaining my reasoning and making an offer.
AngryPartsBloke said:
Red 4 said:
No doubt.
But the impression I got (rightly or wrongly) was that he was suggesting the op should make a financial settlement with his ex. over and above the return of the deposit to the grandparents.
Given the current situation (legal principles aside) I would suggest that is unwise.
I would suggest it would be most unwise to follow the advice or opinion of anybody but Breadvan.But the impression I got (rightly or wrongly) was that he was suggesting the op should make a financial settlement with his ex. over and above the return of the deposit to the grandparents.
Given the current situation (legal principles aside) I would suggest that is unwise.
Not to slight Breadvan, but he's emphatically not the OP's lawyer, and as such is giving only the most general of advice.
tenpenceshort said:
No, no, no. We should listen ONLY to BV, as he is now our evil lizard overlord. And I for one think that's lovely.
And helpfully, he's even told us that his address is Number 1, Secret Evil Base Inside a Hollowed Out Volcano With All Monorails And Lasers And Stuff, L12 8RDAnyway. I'm sick of living in an evil underground mountain lair in, erm, urban Liverpool. I'm leaving. And I'm taking the sharks, most of the anonymous henchladies and at least a couple of nukes. Smell yer later!
Oh, and OP, the best way to avoid a dispute getting out of hand (read: expensive) is to communicate, as rationally as possible. A negotiation typically involves both parties giving something up in return for an end to hostilities. Best of luck.
Oh, and OP, the best way to avoid a dispute getting out of hand (read: expensive) is to communicate, as rationally as possible. A negotiation typically involves both parties giving something up in return for an end to hostilities. Best of luck.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff