Potential messy split
Discussion
Hi guys,
I wondered if anyone could offer any advice on the below.
I realize that eventually proper legal advice will need to be sought but for now I could do with knowing what the likely outcome will be.
This regards two family members who are going through a bit of a tough time and have decided to split.
I’ll change their names in the interest of their privacy so I’ll call them Kate and Rob.
12 years ago Kate was single living with her two daughters, one of who was under 16.
She had a nice house with an outstanding mortgage of around £85K, this was interest only.
Her ex-husband was paying this mortgage as part of their maintenance agreement (He had signed the whole house over to her when they divorced)
Kate then met Rob who soon moved in and took over paying the mortgage which was in Kates Ex husbands name.
3 years ago they decided to move house, Kate sold the house for £290K and the new house cost £300K.
The new house was entirely in Kates name and she was the sole name on the £95K(ish) mortgage (this was now a repayment mortgage)
One of the reasons that Rob wasn’t on the mortgage was because he had been declared bankrupt about 10 years ago.
Over the next 3 years Kate didn’t really work (although she used to help out occasionally with Robs business), Rob worked full time and would transfer Kate £2K every month to pay the mortgage, bills and food.
Now they are splitting is where it gets messy, the house has been valued at £425K and they are arguing over how the money should be split.
I should point out also that a fair few improvements have been made to the house which mainly Rob has completed and would have cost around £15K in materials I imagine.
Some of this was funded by Rob and some by Kate, maybe £10K Rob / £5K Kate.
Both agree that Kate walks away with the initial £205K equity she had before Rob moved in.
Rob thinks they should split the profit the new house has made over the last 3 years so he wants £60K.
Kate wants to give him £10-15K, worst case scenario she wants to give him the money he has put in mortgage wise over the last 3 years which would total around £20K + £8K to take into account the profit the house has made in this period.
Robs name is not on the house deeds, mortgage, bills, but it is on the Electoral roll for the house.
Also Kate and Rob are not married.
Reading this I’m sure everyone can come to their own conclusions on what is morally right but I know it’s not going to come down to that.
Can anyone let me know on where they both stand legally?
Me and my partner are very close to Kate and Rob and fear for what the coming months have in store for them both.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and I appreciate any input.
No idea of the law, but..
If they agree that kate's 205k was always hers, then she had more skin in the game. If you imagine the house as a pure investment, and then look at the percentage increase - times thst percentage of protit x the investment they have each, imo gives a "no emotion" figure.
Not doing the maths, but it sounds like that 20k figure might not be too far from fair.
If they agree that kate's 205k was always hers, then she had more skin in the game. If you imagine the house as a pure investment, and then look at the percentage increase - times thst percentage of protit x the investment they have each, imo gives a "no emotion" figure.
Not doing the maths, but it sounds like that 20k figure might not be too far from fair.
Someone I know split from her long term partner (9 years) while together he paid towards the mortgage/upkeep/repairs etc, he was made an offer of £40k and to sign saying no further interest in the property etc, refused the offer saying it's not enough and issued a court claim to force a house sale, all of this within a 10 month period and the house has now gone up for sale and when sold he will end up with approx £25k
I'd suggest they should seek arbitration first, rather than contest it.
My common sense not legal view is that Kate does have the right to the bulk of the uplift (it is essential a return on capital), but that Rob should see a fair return on his contribution. I don't think it should be the full value of monthly since a portion was household expenses. My feeling is that it should be in the ballpark of the total monthly mortgage payments for the period, plus two thirds of the increase in value his improvements have made.
My common sense not legal view is that Kate does have the right to the bulk of the uplift (it is essential a return on capital), but that Rob should see a fair return on his contribution. I don't think it should be the full value of monthly since a portion was household expenses. My feeling is that it should be in the ballpark of the total monthly mortgage payments for the period, plus two thirds of the increase in value his improvements have made.
Land and property law is complicated.
But a beneficial interest in a property can be created by a 'contribution' to the property. This need not even be a financial contribution and can be time and effort maintaining the property.
It seems to be that it wouldn't be difficult for Rob to prove he is entitled to a financial interest. The issue is to what extent.
I had this done to me by an ex back in 2002. At the time I was advised it would cost me £15,000 to fight the claim via the Court.
But a beneficial interest in a property can be created by a 'contribution' to the property. This need not even be a financial contribution and can be time and effort maintaining the property.
It seems to be that it wouldn't be difficult for Rob to prove he is entitled to a financial interest. The issue is to what extent.
I had this done to me by an ex back in 2002. At the time I was advised it would cost me £15,000 to fight the claim via the Court.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Thursday 16th August 13:31
For those saying Rob is screwed....he wont be if he can prove what he transferred to her monthly and the purpose of it.
I have been in a similar situation with an ex girlfriend when we lived together and split up. If he contributes X% to the overall household over 3 years then he in principle is entitled to X% of the gain in value over that time.
I have been in a similar situation with an ex girlfriend when we lived together and split up. If he contributes X% to the overall household over 3 years then he in principle is entitled to X% of the gain in value over that time.
Sir Bagalot said:
When Rob moved in and started paying the mortgage what was the value of Kates house?
Thanks everyone for the replies so far, some interesting points have been raised.A rough guess I would say £195K-200K maybe.
Do you think Rob will have a claim over this increase in this value too? Will it matter that the mortgage was interest only?
It would save them both time, heartache and stress if they both agreed to an independent arbitration of what each is entitled too. It would probably save them both money once legal fees are taken into account too.
Alas, messy usually means that greed and revenge team up in an unholy alliance.
Alas, messy usually means that greed and revenge team up in an unholy alliance.
HantsRat said:
As I see it.. No married and nothing in his name = entitled to nothing.
I'm no divorce expert though.
This is a serious and non hostile question, HR. Why express an opinion on a subject that you know nothing about? You are a knowledgeable and very helpful poster on road traffic matters, but here you have jumped way out of your field and expressed a view that is, er... wrong. I know that people like to be helpful, but I am genuinely curious about appetite for giving legal advice on specialist topics without any relevant knowledge base. I don't read threads about medicine or engineering, but if I did, I wouldn't offer medical or engineering opinions. If someone asks me who I think will win the Rugby League this year, I will say "I have no clue".I'm no divorce expert though.
I am a huge fan of general legal education and think it should be included in school curricula (a healthy democracy should have citizens who are well informed about its legal system and basic legal rules), but giving advice on matters that may require a bit of know how is something that might be approached with caution.
To all those saying that because the partners are not married, the partner who does not own the house has no rights - you are all wrong. He may have some rights, and on the facts stated possibly (note that word) has a claim to a modest beneficial interest in the house.
There are more numbers to look at:
Value of the house when he moved in - if the mortgage of 85k was 50% of the house value at that time - he's funded half the house value by paying the mortgage. The idea she "owned" the house when he moved in is a little fanciful if it was owned by the bank. His share could be argued as the proportion of the share the bank owned - so if the bank owned 40% his share would be 40% as hes funded all borrowing costs.
He may also have an argument for any reduction in mortgage as its not on repayment.
But plenty of people don't get numbers and this kind of maths - people sit in the pub saying stuff is theirs and ignore other stuff as they don't understand it.
Value of the house when he moved in - if the mortgage of 85k was 50% of the house value at that time - he's funded half the house value by paying the mortgage. The idea she "owned" the house when he moved in is a little fanciful if it was owned by the bank. His share could be argued as the proportion of the share the bank owned - so if the bank owned 40% his share would be 40% as hes funded all borrowing costs.
He may also have an argument for any reduction in mortgage as its not on repayment.
But plenty of people don't get numbers and this kind of maths - people sit in the pub saying stuff is theirs and ignore other stuff as they don't understand it.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff