relationship breakup and house
Discussion
tom2019 said:
How does she have a claim. I'm assuming the mortgage is more than £400 so she carnt claim to be paying half the mortgage. The 4 grand was a gift which was in writing. It seems she's been paying towards the bills.
I don't understand how the £200 a month is contribution to the house when there are other bills to pay aswell.
Non pub law does not just look simplistically at the mortgage payments. Non pub law says that a contribution to household outgoings by a co-habitee can create an interest in the house, especially when the parties approached the purchase as a joint purchase, as they did here according to the OP. Making that contribution freed up funds for the OP to pay the mortgage. I don't understand how the £200 a month is contribution to the house when there are other bills to pay aswell.
Non pub law recognises that the grandparents made a gift to the ex, or maybe to the couple, but this is not about a claim by the grandparents. The fact is that the ex was able to bring 4K into the pot, without which the deposit would have been underfunded by that amount. Her source of funding is not the issue.
Breadvan72 said:
I see no downside in you writing a calm and polite letter to your ex setting out what you consider her entitlement to be (percentage of equity based on percentage of payments to the house), with your proposals for staged payments, to be made in return for a release of all claims over the house. You could make your initial approach without prejudice but be prepared to make it open.
Sage advice, as ever, from Breaders LJ - but there is also something to be said, at least IMO, for letting the ex more formally pin her colours to the mast before making any proposal. It's cynical but see whether she has the willingness - and the means - to escalate things and actually take some advice.Bearing in mind that if her claim is worth less than £10K, there's every chance it would be treated as a small claim and hence, even if she was to be successful, she wouldn't be entitled to recover her legal costs. Even if you were to settle after receiving a formal letter of claim, there is no automatic entitlement for her to pass on to you the costs she has incurred in taking her own advice and getting a solicitor to draft a pre-action protocol letter of claim.
Breadvan72 said:
tom2019 said:
How does she have a claim. I'm assuming the mortgage is more than £400 so she carnt claim to be paying half the mortgage. The 4 grand was a gift which was in writing. It seems she's been paying towards the bills.
I don't understand how the £200 a month is contribution to the house when there are other bills to pay aswell.
Non pub law does not just look simplistically at the mortgage payments. Non pub law says that a contribution to household outgoings by a co-habitee can create an interest in the house, especially when the parties approached the purchase as a joint purchase, as they did here according to the OP. Making that contribution freed up funds for the OP to pay the mortgage. I don't understand how the £200 a month is contribution to the house when there are other bills to pay aswell.
Non pub law recognises that the grandparents made a gift to the ex, or maybe to the couple, but this is not about a claim by the grandparents. The fact is that the ex was able to bring 4K into the pot, without which the deposit would have been underfunded by that amount. Her source of funding is not the issue.
...and I certainly wouldn't be taking legal advice from someone who includes nuggets such as "carnt" and "aswell"...
I add that the variety of non pub law that is relevant here is called equity, and the whole point of equity is that it is supposed to act on the conscience. The OP is at least showing some conscience by suggesting some payment, but in good conscience the claim is for more than just the amount paid in. Whilst the ex could not have had the opportunity to share in an asset without the OP, the same is true in reverse, or so it appears, as the ex helped gather together the deposit and then paid a share, even if a small one, of the outgoings.
Breadvan72 said:
I add that the variety of non pub law that is relevant here is called equity, and the whole point of equity is that it is supposed to act on the conscience. The OP is at least showing some conscience by suggesting some payment, but in good conscience the claim is for more than just the amount paid in. Whilst the ex could not have had the opportunity to share in an asset without the OP, the same is true in reverse, or so it appears, as the ex helped gather together the deposit and then paid a share, even if a small one, of the outgoings.
A beautifully reasoned and expressed argument.Based upon the numbers, if the house were sold today, it could be reasonably argued that the net gain is:
£182k less £168k purchase price less £1.68k stamp duty less £3.822k [assumed commission at 1.75% ex VAT] = £8.498k. Based upon the 4k ex vs 8k OP deposit ratio, that would equitably in good conscience entitle her to £8.498k / 3 = £2.832k in addition to her original £4k contribution plus presumably some recognition of her 8x £200 contributions to mortgage payments and bills while she was resident.
@ Breadvan 72, I am genuinely interested whether professionally or personally you would regard a claim from the OP's ex of somewhere upwards of £7k based upon these figures as equitable and something that could be sought by her or her legal representative in good conscience based upon her £4k + 8 x £200 contributions. I really struggle with the argument of this being 'equitable' and I think struggle because of the assumption that the house has a value, when in fact it is not a liquid asset and its value is only materialised and accountable if and when it is sold and the corresponding costs associated with the purchase and sale are accurately accounted for.
For me this is an eye opener to the importance of a Declaration of Trust for any such arrangements.
12lee said:
Breadvan72 said:
I add that the variety of non pub law that is relevant here is called equity, and the whole point of equity is that it is supposed to act on the conscience. The OP is at least showing some conscience by suggesting some payment, but in good conscience the claim is for more than just the amount paid in. Whilst the ex could not have had the opportunity to share in an asset without the OP, the same is true in reverse, or so it appears, as the ex helped gather together the deposit and then paid a share, even if a small one, of the outgoings.
A beautifully reasoned and expressed argument.Based upon the numbers, if the house were sold today, it could be reasonably argued that the net gain is:
£182k less £168k purchase price less £1.68k stamp duty less £3.822k [assumed commission at 1.75% ex VAT] = £8.498k. Based upon the 4k ex vs 8k OP deposit ratio, that would equitably in good conscience entitle her to £8.498k / 3 = £2.832k in addition to her original £4k contribution plus presumably some recognition of her 8x £200 contributions to mortgage payments and bills while she was resident.
@ Breadvan 72, I am genuinely interested whether professionally or personally you would regard a claim from the OP's ex of somewhere upwards of £7k based upon these figures as equitable and something that could be sought by her or her legal representative in good conscience based upon her £4k + 8 x £200 contributions. I really struggle with the argument of this being 'equitable' and I think struggle because of the assumption that the house has a value, when in fact it is not a liquid asset and its value is only materialised and accountable if and when it is sold and the corresponding costs associated with the purchase and sale are accurately accounted for.
For me this is an eye opener to the importance of a Declaration of Trust for any such arrangements.
she contributed to running costs, which are consumed, allowing her claim on the asset, you cannot reason she gets that and a proportion of the asset increase returned.
As said above the word 'contribution' is key. Even if she had not contributed financially, she would still have cooked, cleaned, decorated etc and contributed towards the upkeep of the house, and therefore could be argued has contributed towards the increase in value of the house.
sure there is lots of caselaw in support of the ex's claim and I think the Op has to tread very carefully and not be blinkered by what he thinks is right.
sure there is lots of caselaw in support of the ex's claim and I think the Op has to tread very carefully and not be blinkered by what he thinks is right.
Many people on PH appear to have rather odd (that is to say selfish) notions of what is right, and threads such as this one and their counterparts about a woman retaining possession of a jointly owned house often bring out some fairly ugly misogyny. I wonder if the pub lawyers suggesting that the ex should jog on would be telling the OP to jog on if the roles in the story were reversed. I suspect that we'd have lots of "she's robbing you, mate", suggestions of calling the cops, suing her for every penny etc.
The value of a contribution to a house can only be recognised by reference to the value that the house would realise if sold. Realistically, what usually happens is that one co owner buys out the other co owner's interest.
I make no comment about figures as I do not know what the house might be worth, but it's not a case as someone above suggests of double compensating the ex by paying back the amount she paid in and also giving her a share of value on top of that. It's a question of valuing her interest by reference to her contributions.
The payments made to the grandparents may be a red herring here, because they do not discharge liability to the ex. I have already said that making those payments without obtaining such a discharge was unwise. A offer of settlement should seek a credit in respect of those payments, but they wouldn't necessarily be taken into account if the matter went as far as a judgment.
All of this shows why there is no substitute for professional advice on a subject such as this. Asking a bunch of anonymous people on a car forum, especially after you have already taken some steps, isn't a very good idea. Hoping that someone with zero relevant qualifications and no responsibility to you will give you the advice that you want to hear isn't a very good plan either.
The value of a contribution to a house can only be recognised by reference to the value that the house would realise if sold. Realistically, what usually happens is that one co owner buys out the other co owner's interest.
I make no comment about figures as I do not know what the house might be worth, but it's not a case as someone above suggests of double compensating the ex by paying back the amount she paid in and also giving her a share of value on top of that. It's a question of valuing her interest by reference to her contributions.
The payments made to the grandparents may be a red herring here, because they do not discharge liability to the ex. I have already said that making those payments without obtaining such a discharge was unwise. A offer of settlement should seek a credit in respect of those payments, but they wouldn't necessarily be taken into account if the matter went as far as a judgment.
All of this shows why there is no substitute for professional advice on a subject such as this. Asking a bunch of anonymous people on a car forum, especially after you have already taken some steps, isn't a very good idea. Hoping that someone with zero relevant qualifications and no responsibility to you will give you the advice that you want to hear isn't a very good plan either.
Breadvan72 said:
I add that the variety of non pub law that is relevant here is called equity, and the whole point of equity is that it is supposed to act on the conscience. The OP is at least showing some conscience by suggesting some payment, but in good conscience the claim is for more than just the amount paid in. Whilst the ex could not have had the opportunity to share in an asset without the OP, the same is true in reverse, or so it appears, as the ex helped gather together the deposit and then paid a share, even if a small one, of the outgoings.
Look, take your common sense and informed opinion and get out.
tenpenceshort said:
Soov535 said:
Look, take your common sense and informed opinion and get out.
I think that contribution entitles you to a 3.5% share in this thread. Now, I'm going to offer you 2% if you'll just f
k off now. Do you prefer cash or cheque?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff