relationship breakup and house
Discussion
The circumstances are not identical (and I am aware this can make a difference) but I have a question for BV/Rude-boy.
How relevant is this? - http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jun/20/mortg...
If so, and the ex g/f is serious about pursuing the OP, he could be in for a rocky ride. Took me all of 30 seconds to find on Google. If I can do it so can she (or her parents who I suspect are behind this latest development).
My guess is that the OP is going to need to budget for some potentially large legal costs before this is resolved. Is it quite possible that her parents are going to bankroll her in pursuing this.
How relevant is this? - http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jun/20/mortg...
If so, and the ex g/f is serious about pursuing the OP, he could be in for a rocky ride. Took me all of 30 seconds to find on Google. If I can do it so can she (or her parents who I suspect are behind this latest development).
My guess is that the OP is going to need to budget for some potentially large legal costs before this is resolved. Is it quite possible that her parents are going to bankroll her in pursuing this.
Red Devil said:
The circumstances are not identical (and I am aware this can make a difference) but I have a question for BV/Rude-boy.
How relevant is this? - http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jun/20/mortg...
If so, and the ex g/f is serious about pursuing the OP, he could be in for a rocky ride. Took me all of 30 seconds to find on Google. If I can do it so can she (or her parents who I suspect are behind this latest development).
My guess is that the OP is going to need to budget for some potentially large legal costs before this is resolved. Is it quite possible that her parents are going to bankroll her in pursuing this.
That is different to the OP because it appears in that case they were registered at Land Registry as joint owners and therefore likely had a joint mortgage.How relevant is this? - http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jun/20/mortg...
If so, and the ex g/f is serious about pursuing the OP, he could be in for a rocky ride. Took me all of 30 seconds to find on Google. If I can do it so can she (or her parents who I suspect are behind this latest development).
My guess is that the OP is going to need to budget for some potentially large legal costs before this is resolved. Is it quite possible that her parents are going to bankroll her in pursuing this.
The OP is the sole owner and sole mortgagee.
bobfett said:
Xerstead said:
It wouldn't surprise me if her friends have suggested she should get half the full value of the house 
I'm betting on this too.The ex and I only broke up as her friends told her she was settling down too early and should go out and get pissed more. We're both 29 ffs and had been together 8 years..... Anyway...
I went through this in jan/February.
Luckily it was amicable but here's how we did it. Got the mortgage statement, worked out what we had paid off. I 'owed' her half of that. Also got the placed valued and any increase, I 'owed' her half of that. - you'll be surprised how little this is!
When then sat down and made a list of everything that she'd bought and wasn't taking with her (sofa, white goods) and I paid her a price we'd agreed on. I then got her removed from the mortgage and got her to sign paperwork to the effect that she was happy shed been paid everything she was owed and had no interest in the property any longer.
Breadvan72 said:
You seem very sure of that view, even though it's wrong. Could you let us have some reasons to support your learned opinion, and perhaps give us an insight into your legal qualifications and experience? If you are just spouting off pub wisdom without any knowledge of the law, why bother?
As for the point above about disclaiming against the mortgage lender, that would not bind the ex as against the OP. In some cases such a disclaimer might provide supporting evidence if the legal owner's case was that there was no agreement as to co-ownership, but in the present case it appears from the opening post that the OP and his ex had an agreement to be be co-owners of the house.
The mortgage and land registry is solely in my name. As for the point above about disclaiming against the mortgage lender, that would not bind the ex as against the OP. In some cases such a disclaimer might provide supporting evidence if the legal owner's case was that there was no agreement as to co-ownership, but in the present case it appears from the opening post that the OP and his ex had an agreement to be be co-owners of the house.
All bills were taken from my account and in my name.
Her name isn't on the house?!
Breadvan72 said:
As for the point above about disclaiming against the mortgage lender, that would not bind the ex as against the OP. In some cases such a disclaimer might provide supporting evidence if the legal owner's case was that there was no agreement as to co-ownership, but in the present case it appears from the opening post that the OP and his ex had an agreement to be be co-owners of the house.
If there were any case the court would be looking at the intentions of the two parties going into the transaction and their actions and contributions up to the point of the split. There is little doubt that the ex has the basis of a claim, how strong that basis is depends on a whole heap of things that go way beyond the scratch on the surface that is on here. In reality though the very best way to deal with this for the OP would be to try to agree a mutually acceptable resolution before things get too far out of hand. It occurs to me that each side could well end up paying legal bills of greater value than any successful claim by the ex from what little we know. This is to be avoided as it is also not just the money but also the emotional and other pressures that litigation brings and this should be considered as a priority. If you have never been directly involved in a court case you may question this. If you have then you will understand exactly where I approach this from.
From the emotional POV in being involved in court disputes of any sort, totally agree with Rude Boy. I do worry that posters who suspect she may believe she's entitled to half could be right.
The op should spend a modest amount now on insured, specialist advice before doing anything else. It is difficult to row back from promises made and regretted prior to taking advice.
The op should spend a modest amount now on insured, specialist advice before doing anything else. It is difficult to row back from promises made and regretted prior to taking advice.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Red Devil said:
The circumstances are not identical (and I am aware this can make a difference) but I have a question for BV/Rude-boy.
How relevant is this? - http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jun/20/mortg...
If so, and the ex g/f is serious about pursuing the OP, he could be in for a rocky ride. Took me all of 30 seconds to find on Google. If I can do it so can she (or her parents who I suspect are behind this latest development).
My guess is that the OP is going to need to budget for some potentially large legal costs before this is resolved. Is it quite possible that her parents are going to bankroll her in pursuing this.
That is different to the OP because it appears in that case they were registered at Land Registry as joint owners and therefore likely had a joint mortgage.How relevant is this? - http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jun/20/mortg...
If so, and the ex g/f is serious about pursuing the OP, he could be in for a rocky ride. Took me all of 30 seconds to find on Google. If I can do it so can she (or her parents who I suspect are behind this latest development).
My guess is that the OP is going to need to budget for some potentially large legal costs before this is resolved. Is it quite possible that her parents are going to bankroll her in pursuing this.
The OP is the sole owner and sole mortgagee.
I'm interested in the answer from someone with a known legal pedigree. What say you BV?
As might be imagined this subject has come up before. Google came up with this - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
dancole90 said:
The initial deposit was £8k from my own savings plus a £4k gift from her grand parents. During the application we needed a letter from them to say the money was a gift with no requirement to repay and no interest in the house.
I paid her grandparents £3000 back, the last of my savings as they were very helpful and it seemed only right IMO , this was all I could afford. For my own peace of mind they signed a receipt letter saying they accepted my offer of £3k and had received payment and had no further involvement in the house.
The bit in bold is a bit baffling as they had no interest in the house in the first place.I paid her grandparents £3000 back, the last of my savings as they were very helpful and it seemed only right IMO , this was all I could afford. For my own peace of mind they signed a receipt letter saying they accepted my offer of £3k and had received payment and had no further involvement in the house.
It was very decent of you to compensate them, but I wonder if you've jumped the gun there?
Red Devil said:
I realise that and so qualified my post accordingly. I'm still not sure it's that simple though. I'm thinking that the £4k (could this be deemed a gift from the grandparents to her?) may be evidence of an intention that she should have part ownership and thus a beneficial interest. The mortgage lender not being prepared to lend with her name on the Land Registry title isn't necessarily a point in his favour.
I'm interested in the answer from someone with a known legal pedigree. What say you BV?
As might be imagined this subject has come up before. Google came up with this - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
I am not disputing that the OP's ex likely has an interest in the property, and have said as such.I'm interested in the answer from someone with a known legal pedigree. What say you BV?
As might be imagined this subject has come up before. Google came up with this - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
No I am not a lawyer, but I have personally been through this scenario. I didn't reach court though as I paid her off.
TheLordJohn said:
Zoobeef said:
I wonder if it had gone into negative equity how quick she would be to give you some money.
They really are snakes with tits aren't they!? Always looking out for what they can get for themselves. Been that way for Millenia.
What would you pub experts and/or women haters be saying if the OP had popped up with a sad tale of how his family put in 4K for a house, he paid what he could afford, but his ex, who made most of the payments and has her name on the legal title, now has possession of the house and told him to get lost when he asked for his fair share of the equity?
Red Devil said:
The circumstances are not identical (and I am aware this can make a difference) but I have a question for BV/Rude-boy.
How relevant is this? - http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jun/20/mortg...
If so, and the ex g/f is serious about pursuing the OP, he could be in for a rocky ride. Took me all of 30 seconds to find on Google. If I can do it so can she (or her parents who I suspect are behind this latest development).
You may wish to look at Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53. The article you have linked to is based on the 2010 Court of Appeal ruling. The 2011 appeal to the Supreme Court was allowed unanimously and a 10%:90% apportionment (as ruled in the original hearing as being fair and just before the Court of Appeal hearing and the final Supreme Court hearing) being the final result.How relevant is this? - http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jun/20/mortg...
If so, and the ex g/f is serious about pursuing the OP, he could be in for a rocky ride. Took me all of 30 seconds to find on Google. If I can do it so can she (or her parents who I suspect are behind this latest development).
The interesting thing about that though is that whilst the Judges all came to the same result they failed to provide unanimity in their approaches to the judgement.
It is also important to note that the joint ownership position and joint liability under the mortgage in J&K were significant factors in the judges considerations of the case. In the OP's case there is no joint ownership of the legal title or joint liability under the mortgage and as such the consideration of "Equity following the law" is, I believe, not applicable here.
As ever though IAALBNYL and this is right on the edge of my field, all I will say with 100% 'this is legal advice' on this topic is that others should read, learn and NEVER buy a property without taking full advice on, and properly considering, the ownership position and if there is anything that needs to be set out. It's easy to sort out and agree upon a Declaration of Trust (if that is what is needed) day one when all are happy going into these things, a nightmare when it all goes wrong.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Red Devil said:
I realise that and so qualified my post accordingly. I'm still not sure it's that simple though. I'm thinking that the £4k (could this be deemed a gift from the grandparents to her?) may be evidence of an intention that she should have part ownership and thus a beneficial interest. The mortgage lender not being prepared to lend with her name on the Land Registry title isn't necessarily a point in his favour.
I'm interested in the answer from someone with a known legal pedigree. What say you BV?
As might be imagined this subject has come up before. Google came up with this - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
I am not disputing that the OP's ex likely has an interest in the property, and have said as such.I'm interested in the answer from someone with a known legal pedigree. What say you BV?
As might be imagined this subject has come up before. Google came up with this - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
No I am not a lawyer, but I have personally been through this scenario. I didn't reach court though as I paid her off.
As you mentioned previously, cases differ on specifics. I don't know to what extent yours match those of the OP. I am interested in BV's opinion precisely because the £4k may provide sufficient interest. That leads on to the likelihood that the OP will need to pay her to go away. How much of a case to does she really have (based on what we know so far) and her percentage chance of succeeding?
The OP has already said he told her to jog on. His choice is now to maintain that stance or negotiate (court is always to be avoided wherever possible: you might as well burn your money). So he needs to know where he stands. I wouldn't go down either route without getting professional advice first. What I'm fairly sure of is that the OP will need to have more than spare change in his piggy bank over the coming months whichever course he chooses.
The OP's stance in telling his ex to jog on may accord with the typically boorish PH mentality, but I suggest that it was both legally and morally wrong. I think that the apparent intentions of the parties (based on the OP's own narrative) and the facts that the ex procured 4K for the deposit and then made modest contributions to the household outgoings are sufficient to give her a good arguable claim to have a beneficial interest in the property. Her interest is well short of 50%, but it will have some value.
The OP should certainly seek to avoid litigation (which, as a litigator, I almost always advise people to avoid). He should negotiate for a fair settlement. Telling the ex to jog on was a bad start, but it is not too late for sense to prevail.
The OP should certainly seek to avoid litigation (which, as a litigator, I almost always advise people to avoid). He should negotiate for a fair settlement. Telling the ex to jog on was a bad start, but it is not too late for sense to prevail.
At the risk of going off on a tangent, I will be doing similar to the OP. Buying in my name, all my deposit but we live together so she'll be contributing to bills/paying me rent.
What do I need to protect myself and make sure she isn't going to suddenly be responsible for something we've not thought of. we currently rent together and have joint account for gas/leccy/water/virgin.
What do I need to protect myself and make sure she isn't going to suddenly be responsible for something we've not thought of. we currently rent together and have joint account for gas/leccy/water/virgin.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff