Family/Property law advice.
Discussion
After a bit of general legal advise/experience on the following situation. Will try to keep it brief.
A married couple buy a house together and have a mortgage on said house.
Relationship breaks down after 3 years, the husband moves out of house but retains name on mortgage.
Husband no longer contributes any money towards mortgage from this point on.
After 15 or so years of wife paying mortgage herself as well as for the two kids within the house (also not properly contributed toward by husband) the wife wants to get now ex-husband name off mortgage and renew/extend in her name only.
He refuses to have his name off mortgage, despite having never paid anything towards it for 15 odd years, not lived in house and also been married and divorced a further time since then.
a.) Can she legally get him taken off the mortgage by showing his total lack of monetary contributions over such an extended period of time?
b.) Is having your name on a mortgage you have nothing to do with not some kind of fraud in terms of credit situation etc?
c.) If the wife were to pursue this matter in a legal/court manner, would she be opening herself up to risk of losing 50% of the house even if it can be proved he has essentially had very little financial involvement aside from the initial deposit and maybe 1-2 years of contributions at the beginning?
I am not quite sure how none of this was directly addressed under the divorce terms as thought that would have been legally needed to have been resolved?
I don’t have all the details as it’s not my direct situation but thought I would throw it open to the knowledgeable PH folks.
Many thanks!
A married couple buy a house together and have a mortgage on said house.
Relationship breaks down after 3 years, the husband moves out of house but retains name on mortgage.
Husband no longer contributes any money towards mortgage from this point on.
After 15 or so years of wife paying mortgage herself as well as for the two kids within the house (also not properly contributed toward by husband) the wife wants to get now ex-husband name off mortgage and renew/extend in her name only.
He refuses to have his name off mortgage, despite having never paid anything towards it for 15 odd years, not lived in house and also been married and divorced a further time since then.
a.) Can she legally get him taken off the mortgage by showing his total lack of monetary contributions over such an extended period of time?
b.) Is having your name on a mortgage you have nothing to do with not some kind of fraud in terms of credit situation etc?
c.) If the wife were to pursue this matter in a legal/court manner, would she be opening herself up to risk of losing 50% of the house even if it can be proved he has essentially had very little financial involvement aside from the initial deposit and maybe 1-2 years of contributions at the beginning?
I am not quite sure how none of this was directly addressed under the divorce terms as thought that would have been legally needed to have been resolved?
I don’t have all the details as it’s not my direct situation but thought I would throw it open to the knowledgeable PH folks.
Many thanks!
I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not very knowledgeable but I would suggest option C would be the right answer.
It should have been sorted when they first got divorced. Things like this have a habit of coming back to bite you if not done properly in the first place.
Hopefully somebody who knows what they're talking about will come along and help you.
It should have been sorted when they first got divorced. Things like this have a habit of coming back to bite you if not done properly in the first place.
Hopefully somebody who knows what they're talking about will come along and help you.
It sounds like they failed to settle any of the financial aspects of the marriage formally when it ended and that the house is still legally jointly owned.
I'm no lawyer and she needs to seek proper legal advice.
In my opinion, if they were both in agreement with one another now and acting co-operatively - with him acting in fairness based on the facts given - it wouldn't be a terribly difficult or expensive process to make the house ownership hers solely and then have him taken off the mortgage. However there is some probability that he wants to keep what may still legally be 'his half' of the house and is prepared to have a fight about it, and there is a risk it may not go entirely in her favour depending on their respective circumstances. Understanding that level of risk, and how to defend against it, is where proper legal advice is essential.
Did he buy another property since then or accrue wealth generally? If so any 'claim' may extend in both directions and would help focus his mind somewhat.
I'm no lawyer and she needs to seek proper legal advice.
In my opinion, if they were both in agreement with one another now and acting co-operatively - with him acting in fairness based on the facts given - it wouldn't be a terribly difficult or expensive process to make the house ownership hers solely and then have him taken off the mortgage. However there is some probability that he wants to keep what may still legally be 'his half' of the house and is prepared to have a fight about it, and there is a risk it may not go entirely in her favour depending on their respective circumstances. Understanding that level of risk, and how to defend against it, is where proper legal advice is essential.
Mezzanine said:
I am not quite sure how none of this was directly addressed under the divorce terms as thought that would have been legally needed to have been resolved?
There are two distinctly separate legal processes here. Terminating the marriage (the bit that gets you a certificate and lets you re-marry) and settling the finances (known as Ancillary Relief or obtaining a Financial Remedy order). Usually they are conducted alongside one another but it seems a common mistake that only the first one is dealt with. Deferring or (blissfully ignoring) the second one stores up all sorts of potential problems for the future.Did he buy another property since then or accrue wealth generally? If so any 'claim' may extend in both directions and would help focus his mind somewhat.
Edited by theboss on Saturday 1st August 19:36
essayer said:
Assuming he was taken off the title deeds in the divorce, shouldn’t the mortgage have been updated to take him off?
I am not privy to the terms or details of their divorce. Unfortunately it’s not something directly connected with me personally but something that is now impacting on my life as a result of not being sorted properly by either party at the time!I assume he is still on the deeds and mortgage (why I do not know)
theboss said:
It sounds like they failed to settle any of the financial aspects of the marriage formally when it ended and that the house is still legally jointly owned.
I'm no lawyer and she needs to seek proper legal advice.
In my opinion, if they were both in agreement with one another now and acting co-operatively - with him acting in fairness based on the facts given - it wouldn't be a terribly difficult or expensive process to make the house ownership hers solely and then have him taken off the mortgage. However there is some probability that he wants to keep what may still legally be 'his half' of the house and is prepared to have a fight about it, and there is a risk it may not go entirely in her favour depending on their respective circumstances. Understanding that level of risk, and how to defend against it, is where proper legal advice is essential.
Did he buy another property since then or accrue wealth generally? If so any 'claim' may extend in both directions and would help focus his mind somewhat.
Thanks for the intelligent and reasoned response. I'm no lawyer and she needs to seek proper legal advice.
In my opinion, if they were both in agreement with one another now and acting co-operatively - with him acting in fairness based on the facts given - it wouldn't be a terribly difficult or expensive process to make the house ownership hers solely and then have him taken off the mortgage. However there is some probability that he wants to keep what may still legally be 'his half' of the house and is prepared to have a fight about it, and there is a risk it may not go entirely in her favour depending on their respective circumstances. Understanding that level of risk, and how to defend against it, is where proper legal advice is essential.
Mezzanine said:
I am not quite sure how none of this was directly addressed under the divorce terms as thought that would have been legally needed to have been resolved?
There are two distinctly separate legal processes here. Terminating the marriage (the bit that gets you a certificate and lets you re-marry) and settling the finances (known as Ancillary Relief or obtaining a Financial Remedy order). Usually they are conducted alongside one another but it seems a common mistake that only the first one is dealt with. Deferring or (blissfully ignoring) the second one stores up all sorts of potential problems for the future.Did he buy another property since then or accrue wealth generally? If so any 'claim' may extend in both directions and would help focus his mind somewhat.
Edited by theboss on Saturday 1st August 19:36
It’s a problem that has bubbled away behind the scenes for many years due to a variety of reasons (not sensible ones)
He has not accrued any wealth (that we know of) he has divorced again and is now living with his Mum back at her house.
He only bothered to return to his original kids lives once the second wife/kids disappeared and seems to feel having his name on the mortgage is an asset of his to hand to the original kids when he dies even though he has contributed about 2% of it many years ago and neglecting to admit he has made their and their mothers lives a daily struggle to survive ever since.
Mezzanine said:
Thanks for the intelligent and reasoned response.
It’s a problem that has bubbled away behind the scenes for many years due to a variety of reasons (not sensible ones)
He has not accrued any wealth (that we know of) he has divorced again and is now living with his Mum back at her house.
He only bothered to return to his original kids lives once the second wife/kids disappeared and seems to feel having his name on the mortgage is an asset of his to hand to the original kids when he dies even though he has contributed about 2% of it many years ago and neglecting to admit he has made their and their mothers lives a daily struggle to survive ever since.
This may present a risk to her, as he would be entitled to argue that he's destitute / homeless and now needs his half of the asset.It’s a problem that has bubbled away behind the scenes for many years due to a variety of reasons (not sensible ones)
He has not accrued any wealth (that we know of) he has divorced again and is now living with his Mum back at her house.
He only bothered to return to his original kids lives once the second wife/kids disappeared and seems to feel having his name on the mortgage is an asset of his to hand to the original kids when he dies even though he has contributed about 2% of it many years ago and neglecting to admit he has made their and their mothers lives a daily struggle to survive ever since.
A disagreement will only result in court and legal costs both sides, which may be an incentive for him to co-operate. Of course a court would look at all the facts including relative contributions.
Did she make claims for maintenance when the children were of that age? e.g. a CSA claim which he failed to comply with
Is he likely to inherit anything in the short to mid term future? How old's Mum?
Edited by theboss on Saturday 1st August 20:28
theboss said:
Mezzanine said:
Thanks for the intelligent and reasoned response.
It’s a problem that has bubbled away behind the scenes for many years due to a variety of reasons (not sensible ones)
He has not accrued any wealth (that we know of) he has divorced again and is now living with his Mum back at her house.
He only bothered to return to his original kids lives once the second wife/kids disappeared and seems to feel having his name on the mortgage is an asset of his to hand to the original kids when he dies even though he has contributed about 2% of it many years ago and neglecting to admit he has made their and their mothers lives a daily struggle to survive ever since.
This may present a risk to her, as he would be entitled to argue that he's destitute / homeless and now needs his half of the asset.It’s a problem that has bubbled away behind the scenes for many years due to a variety of reasons (not sensible ones)
He has not accrued any wealth (that we know of) he has divorced again and is now living with his Mum back at her house.
He only bothered to return to his original kids lives once the second wife/kids disappeared and seems to feel having his name on the mortgage is an asset of his to hand to the original kids when he dies even though he has contributed about 2% of it many years ago and neglecting to admit he has made their and their mothers lives a daily struggle to survive ever since.
A disagreement will only result in court and legal costs both sides, which may be an incentive for him to co-operate. Of course a court would look at all the facts including relative contributions.
Did she make claims for maintenance when the children were of that age? e.g. a CSA claim which he failed to comply with
Is he likely to inherit anything in the short to mid term future? How old's Mum?
Edited by theboss on Saturday 1st August 20:28
I would find it (morally) hard a court would look at the relative facts of money contributions toward the house over such a long period alongside the complete lack of presence in the children’s life and still rule he is entitled to anything but I guess courts don’t work that way.
He is only ‘homeless’ due to his own making after his second divorce and not being able to get himself a mortgage because he technically already has one he doesn’t pay. I don’t think he wants to leave home anyway as his Mum essentially does everything for him.
His mother is old and not in good health and he would be in line for quite a bit of money by all accounts...
Mezzanine said:
His mother is old and not in good health and he would be in line for quite a bit of money by all accounts...
And there you go. She shouldn't have too much to worry about in terms of securing his co-operation when the time comes to it. I would keep that card close to my chest though.theboss said:
Mezzanine said:
His mother is old and not in good health and he would be in line for quite a bit of money by all accounts...
And there you go. She shouldn't have too much to worry about in terms of securing his co-operation when the time comes to it. I would keep that card close to my chest though.He should see sense once there is something on the table for him to potentially lose but I sense his ego/power games will still not let him relinquish his past.
Saleen836 said:
I stand to be corrected if wrong but if the lady tries to use the fact he has not paid anything toward the mortgage he can counter the claim by charging rent on his half for the period he has not lived in the house
No, because he should've been maintaining the home of his children anyway, he can't charge them rent, and it would be morally bankrupt. He gets married, has kids, buggers off after some floozy, doesn't pay towards the mortgage or his children's upbringing, then suddenly claims 50% equity and asks for rent? I should think that any sane lawyer and judge would till him to stick his ideas where the sun doesn't shine. Besides, following proper due process, he almost certainly wouldn't be able to make a case for having a claim to more than what he contributed, and having contributed 2% of the value as mentioned by the OP in one of his later posts, the rental income would be, for all intents and purposes, a tuppence. Presumably she wouldn’t have got a mortgage in her name only on the house after the divorce, had they done things properly, hence keeping quiet about that at the time?
I mean she’s been able to afford the repayment but that doesn’t necessarily mean she would’ve passed the affordability criteria.
Worth remembering also that you’re (and we are) hearing a version of the story at the end of the third act, when it’s all gone to crap. We don’t know anything of what agreements etc were made before.
I mean she’s been able to afford the repayment but that doesn’t necessarily mean she would’ve passed the affordability criteria.
Worth remembering also that you’re (and we are) hearing a version of the story at the end of the third act, when it’s all gone to crap. We don’t know anything of what agreements etc were made before.
Edited by Durzel on Sunday 2nd August 07:25
As she has not remarried she can file for Ancillary Relief (the financial side of the divorce), and if they cannot come to an agreement the Judge will decide for them.
All assets of the parties at the current time will be taken into account, but the Judge has wide discretion to allocate other than 50:50.
All assets of the parties at the current time will be taken into account, but the Judge has wide discretion to allocate other than 50:50.
As others have mentioned, he may be under the illusion that he owns half the house. I don't believe that any Judge would agree, but he probably will get something, however small.
Maybe his ex Wife could force the issue legally, but I don't know how expensive that would be.
He sounds like an absolute charmer.
Maybe his ex Wife could force the issue legally, but I don't know how expensive that would be.
He sounds like an absolute charmer.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff