Discussion
TownIdiot said:
It's an interesting conundrum
Let's say you move in with your squeeze and they own their property.
Notional value 200k
You live as partners and pay your fair share.
10 years later it's doubled in value
Should you get a share of the uplift?
Or if it's gone down
Should you pay your share of the loss since you moved in?
It is already the case that there is a potential share of the house if the other person has been paying toward it. Matrimonial assets are everything, and may also include pensions accrued prior to marriage and right to future earnings. Let's say you move in with your squeeze and they own their property.
Notional value 200k
You live as partners and pay your fair share.
10 years later it's doubled in value
Should you get a share of the uplift?
Or if it's gone down
Should you pay your share of the loss since you moved in?
update:
rings her after the house valuation. how much is the house worth please? 'not telling you', my solicitor has told me not to talk to you.
of course he has with every letter and call going through him he'll be killing it.
my mate said I want half the house and half the car. either take my 50/50 or go see your brief and then you'll be 20k down and still get 50/50 (he hopes)
either way told him, pretty much what 95% people have said on here, its tuna get a lot worse, and expensive, before it gets better.
I even said to him forget the car, ur talking about 5k share for him, and just say half the house. that should be £140k I reckon. sounds a much better deal for her.
he said no, its principle, I want half the car. I said you could send £15k on a brief to chase a £5k pay day.
shows how emotions can play on both sides. my mates a decent business man, said you would run a business plan or decisions like that so snap out of ur principle stance. or it will cost you
rings her after the house valuation. how much is the house worth please? 'not telling you', my solicitor has told me not to talk to you.
of course he has with every letter and call going through him he'll be killing it.
my mate said I want half the house and half the car. either take my 50/50 or go see your brief and then you'll be 20k down and still get 50/50 (he hopes)
either way told him, pretty much what 95% people have said on here, its tuna get a lot worse, and expensive, before it gets better.
I even said to him forget the car, ur talking about 5k share for him, and just say half the house. that should be £140k I reckon. sounds a much better deal for her.
he said no, its principle, I want half the car. I said you could send £15k on a brief to chase a £5k pay day.
shows how emotions can play on both sides. my mates a decent business man, said you would run a business plan or decisions like that so snap out of ur principle stance. or it will cost you
kingswood said:
update:
rings her after the house valuation. how much is the house worth please? 'not telling you', my solicitor has told me not to talk to you.
of course he has with every letter and call going through him he'll be killing it.
my mate said I want half the house and half the car. either take my 50/50 or go see your brief and then you'll be 20k down and still get 50/50 (he hopes)
either way told him, pretty much what 95% people have said on here, its tuna get a lot worse, and expensive, before it gets better.
I even said to him forget the car, ur talking about 5k share for him, and just say half the house. that should be £140k I reckon. sounds a much better deal for her.
he said no, its principle, I want half the car. I said you could send £15k on a brief to chase a £5k pay day.
shows how emotions can play on both sides. my mates a decent business man, said you would run a business plan or decisions like that so snap out of ur principle stance. or it will cost you
Surely he got his own valuation of the house done??rings her after the house valuation. how much is the house worth please? 'not telling you', my solicitor has told me not to talk to you.
of course he has with every letter and call going through him he'll be killing it.
my mate said I want half the house and half the car. either take my 50/50 or go see your brief and then you'll be 20k down and still get 50/50 (he hopes)
either way told him, pretty much what 95% people have said on here, its tuna get a lot worse, and expensive, before it gets better.
I even said to him forget the car, ur talking about 5k share for him, and just say half the house. that should be £140k I reckon. sounds a much better deal for her.
he said no, its principle, I want half the car. I said you could send £15k on a brief to chase a £5k pay day.
shows how emotions can play on both sides. my mates a decent business man, said you would run a business plan or decisions like that so snap out of ur principle stance. or it will cost you
Crikey
milesgiles said:
Surely he got his own valuation of the house done??
Crikey
He can’t let ‘em in though cos she’s changed the locks Crikey
Fingers crossed for a fair outcome for your mate Op. As said above, she might well be worried about her financial future and this is a big step for her in that respect so clearly she’s going to listen to guidance from her solicitor.
She certainly WILL be getting advice from her coven too and that’s pretty much guaranteed to be vindictive and incorrect.
Drawing lines based on principle will end up being costly.
It’s early days and emotions will be clouding judgement, so hopefully it’s of no consequence as he should see more clearly as time goes on.
A best mate of mine was taking no less than 50%, she was adamant she was getting (a lot) more of the house than him, neither would budge for some time.
A good mediator helped them arrive at 55/45 in her favour, my mate sees now that it’s a good outcome which ends the matter and they have been able to write up a consent order without going to court.
Everything assumes in divorce that they will have some grand day in court where a judge takes account of both their stories in detail and hands down a judgement. In reality if you need a judge to make decisions that can’t be made directly between the warring parties then you’ve failed and burned a boat load of marital capital in the process. I appreciate in some cases it’s unavoidable where one party is reasonable and the other is impossible, but generally speaking most people can and do reach an agreement.
It’s early days and emotions will be clouding judgement, so hopefully it’s of no consequence as he should see more clearly as time goes on.
A best mate of mine was taking no less than 50%, she was adamant she was getting (a lot) more of the house than him, neither would budge for some time.
A good mediator helped them arrive at 55/45 in her favour, my mate sees now that it’s a good outcome which ends the matter and they have been able to write up a consent order without going to court.
Everything assumes in divorce that they will have some grand day in court where a judge takes account of both their stories in detail and hands down a judgement. In reality if you need a judge to make decisions that can’t be made directly between the warring parties then you’ve failed and burned a boat load of marital capital in the process. I appreciate in some cases it’s unavoidable where one party is reasonable and the other is impossible, but generally speaking most people can and do reach an agreement.
A note on cohabitee rights.
My SIL had owned a flat in London for about 15 years, consequently mortgage was tiny. Boyfriend moved in (mostly because he needed somewhere to live), she got up the duff. When child was born, she stopped work and he paid the tiny mortgage for about 3 years - amount was less than he would pay to rent a bedsit somewhere. During this period a loft conversion was done to get a bedroom for the kid - paid for entirely by SIL’s parents.
After 3 years the (unmarried) boyfriend decided he’d had enough. Solicitors were involved and it was decided that because he’d paid the mortgage for 3 years, he was entitled to 3/18ths of the value of the property (3 years he’d been paying the mortgage cos the 18 years the SIL owned it). Despite the fact he’d made zero contribution to the original deposit or loft conversion which made a big uplift to the value, and basically contributed less money than it would have cost him to rent anywhere comparable.
Cost my SIL’s parents another £50k to pay him off. Lesson is that if cohabiting in a property owned by one party, draw up a tenancy contract so that one party pays rent to the other, acquiring no rights.
My SIL had owned a flat in London for about 15 years, consequently mortgage was tiny. Boyfriend moved in (mostly because he needed somewhere to live), she got up the duff. When child was born, she stopped work and he paid the tiny mortgage for about 3 years - amount was less than he would pay to rent a bedsit somewhere. During this period a loft conversion was done to get a bedroom for the kid - paid for entirely by SIL’s parents.
After 3 years the (unmarried) boyfriend decided he’d had enough. Solicitors were involved and it was decided that because he’d paid the mortgage for 3 years, he was entitled to 3/18ths of the value of the property (3 years he’d been paying the mortgage cos the 18 years the SIL owned it). Despite the fact he’d made zero contribution to the original deposit or loft conversion which made a big uplift to the value, and basically contributed less money than it would have cost him to rent anywhere comparable.
Cost my SIL’s parents another £50k to pay him off. Lesson is that if cohabiting in a property owned by one party, draw up a tenancy contract so that one party pays rent to the other, acquiring no rights.
PhilboSE said:
A note on cohabitee rights.
My SIL had owned a flat in London for about 15 years, consequently mortgage was tiny. Boyfriend moved in (mostly because he needed somewhere to live), she got up the duff. When child was born, she stopped work and he paid the tiny mortgage for about 3 years - amount was less than he would pay to rent a bedsit somewhere. During this period a loft conversion was done to get a bedroom for the kid - paid for entirely by SIL’s parents.
After 3 years the (unmarried) boyfriend decided he’d had enough. Solicitors were involved and it was decided that because he’d paid the mortgage for 3 years, he was entitled to 3/18ths of the value of the property (3 years he’d been paying the mortgage cos the 18 years the SIL owned it). Despite the fact he’d made zero contribution to the original deposit or loft conversion which made a big uplift to the value, and basically contributed less money than it would have cost him to rent anywhere comparable.
Cost my SIL’s parents another £50k to pay him off. Lesson is that if cohabiting in a property owned by one party, draw up a tenancy contract so that one party pays rent to the other, acquiring no rights.
Be careful with what you describe as a 'tenancy contract' as this would well possibly give a cohabitee possession rights.My SIL had owned a flat in London for about 15 years, consequently mortgage was tiny. Boyfriend moved in (mostly because he needed somewhere to live), she got up the duff. When child was born, she stopped work and he paid the tiny mortgage for about 3 years - amount was less than he would pay to rent a bedsit somewhere. During this period a loft conversion was done to get a bedroom for the kid - paid for entirely by SIL’s parents.
After 3 years the (unmarried) boyfriend decided he’d had enough. Solicitors were involved and it was decided that because he’d paid the mortgage for 3 years, he was entitled to 3/18ths of the value of the property (3 years he’d been paying the mortgage cos the 18 years the SIL owned it). Despite the fact he’d made zero contribution to the original deposit or loft conversion which made a big uplift to the value, and basically contributed less money than it would have cost him to rent anywhere comparable.
Cost my SIL’s parents another £50k to pay him off. Lesson is that if cohabiting in a property owned by one party, draw up a tenancy contract so that one party pays rent to the other, acquiring no rights.
Only way to limit risk for the property owner is for the cohabitee to sign a lodgers agreement with payment covering the rent only.
PhilboSE said:
A note on cohabitee rights.
My SIL had owned a flat in London for about 15 years, consequently mortgage was tiny. Boyfriend moved in (mostly because he needed somewhere to live), she got up the duff. When child was born, she stopped work and he paid the tiny mortgage for about 3 years - amount was less than he would pay to rent a bedsit somewhere. During this period a loft conversion was done to get a bedroom for the kid - paid for entirely by SIL’s parents.
After 3 years the (unmarried) boyfriend decided he’d had enough. Solicitors were involved and it was decided that because he’d paid the mortgage for 3 years, he was entitled to 3/18ths of the value of the property (3 years he’d been paying the mortgage cos the 18 years the SIL owned it). Despite the fact he’d made zero contribution to the original deposit or loft conversion which made a big uplift to the value, and basically contributed less money than it would have cost him to rent anywhere comparable.
Cost my SIL’s parents another £50k to pay him off. Lesson is that if cohabiting in a property owned by one party, draw up a tenancy contract so that one party pays rent to the other, acquiring no rights.
Well that’s one side of the story My SIL had owned a flat in London for about 15 years, consequently mortgage was tiny. Boyfriend moved in (mostly because he needed somewhere to live), she got up the duff. When child was born, she stopped work and he paid the tiny mortgage for about 3 years - amount was less than he would pay to rent a bedsit somewhere. During this period a loft conversion was done to get a bedroom for the kid - paid for entirely by SIL’s parents.
After 3 years the (unmarried) boyfriend decided he’d had enough. Solicitors were involved and it was decided that because he’d paid the mortgage for 3 years, he was entitled to 3/18ths of the value of the property (3 years he’d been paying the mortgage cos the 18 years the SIL owned it). Despite the fact he’d made zero contribution to the original deposit or loft conversion which made a big uplift to the value, and basically contributed less money than it would have cost him to rent anywhere comparable.
Cost my SIL’s parents another £50k to pay him off. Lesson is that if cohabiting in a property owned by one party, draw up a tenancy contract so that one party pays rent to the other, acquiring no rights.
kingswood said:
update:
rings her after the house valuation. how much is the house worth please? 'not telling you', my solicitor has told me not to talk to you.
of course he has with every letter and call going through him he'll be killing it.
my mate said I want half the house and half the car. either take my 50/50 or go see your brief and then you'll be 20k down and still get 50/50 (he hopes)
either way told him, pretty much what 95% people have said on here, its tuna get a lot worse, and expensive, before it gets better.
I even said to him forget the car, ur talking about 5k share for him, and just say half the house. that should be £140k I reckon. sounds a much better deal for her.
he said no, its principle, I want half the car. I said you could send £15k on a brief to chase a £5k pay day.
shows how emotions can play on both sides. my mates a decent business man, said you would run a business plan or decisions like that so snap out of ur principle stance. or it will cost you
Here we go. rings her after the house valuation. how much is the house worth please? 'not telling you', my solicitor has told me not to talk to you.
of course he has with every letter and call going through him he'll be killing it.
my mate said I want half the house and half the car. either take my 50/50 or go see your brief and then you'll be 20k down and still get 50/50 (he hopes)
either way told him, pretty much what 95% people have said on here, its tuna get a lot worse, and expensive, before it gets better.
I even said to him forget the car, ur talking about 5k share for him, and just say half the house. that should be £140k I reckon. sounds a much better deal for her.
he said no, its principle, I want half the car. I said you could send £15k on a brief to chase a £5k pay day.
shows how emotions can play on both sides. my mates a decent business man, said you would run a business plan or decisions like that so snap out of ur principle stance. or it will cost you
That's not him thinking with his head. She's baited him with the "not telling you" line and he's bitten right into it. The car is the throwaway, the thing she thinks is important to him and which he'll have to give up. Not because it's fair but because it's a win for her.
The most horrific thing my ex said (after 20 years of marriage) was "it's not personal, it's a business transaction". In the middle of potentially losing my kids and home and all i'd worked for, i couldn't believe what i was hearing but in hindsight, she was right.
Your friend needs to work out what he wants from this. No matter what, it's going to cost him 50% + X. He needs to understand the harder he fights for X, the more the legal costs will rise.
Principles are all well and good if you can afford them.
When I split up with my ex it was horrible with the CSA and kids. Now when people ask me for advice I say things like 'You're f
ked, accept it and then this will happen and this is how it will end.' Just factual. It's same kind of advice your friend needs (appreciate this is slightly different).
Another friend battled his ex for nearly 10 years. In the end the money he got out of his house ALL went to the solicitors!
Also, as mentioned earlier, your friend can use that car now as a 'I really want that thing' and then concede it, giving her the impression of a win. She is hurt and hates him and will do anything to hurt him unfortunately and that may never change
I hated giving away so much but in the end it was better than a weekly stshow.
ked, accept it and then this will happen and this is how it will end.' Just factual. It's same kind of advice your friend needs (appreciate this is slightly different).Another friend battled his ex for nearly 10 years. In the end the money he got out of his house ALL went to the solicitors!
Also, as mentioned earlier, your friend can use that car now as a 'I really want that thing' and then concede it, giving her the impression of a win. She is hurt and hates him and will do anything to hurt him unfortunately and that may never change
I hated giving away so much but in the end it was better than a weekly s
tshow. theboss said:
Drawing lines based on principle will end up being costly.
It’s early days and emotions will be clouding judgement, so hopefully it’s of no consequence as he should see more clearly as time goes on.
A best mate of mine was taking no less than 50%, she was adamant she was getting (a lot) more of the house than him, neither would budge for some time.
A good mediator helped them arrive at 55/45 in her favour, my mate sees now that it’s a good outcome which ends the matter and they have been able to write up a consent order without going to court.
Everything assumes in divorce that they will have some grand day in court where a judge takes account of both their stories in detail and hands down a judgement. In reality if you need a judge to make decisions that can’t be made directly between the warring parties then you’ve failed and burned a boat load of marital capital in the process. I appreciate in some cases it’s unavoidable where one party is reasonable and the other is impossible, but generally speaking most people can and do reach an agreement.
A very wise post. Especially the part about the expectation of the grand day in court. Divorce brings out the absolute worst in people. Avarice to the fore.It’s early days and emotions will be clouding judgement, so hopefully it’s of no consequence as he should see more clearly as time goes on.
A best mate of mine was taking no less than 50%, she was adamant she was getting (a lot) more of the house than him, neither would budge for some time.
A good mediator helped them arrive at 55/45 in her favour, my mate sees now that it’s a good outcome which ends the matter and they have been able to write up a consent order without going to court.
Everything assumes in divorce that they will have some grand day in court where a judge takes account of both their stories in detail and hands down a judgement. In reality if you need a judge to make decisions that can’t be made directly between the warring parties then you’ve failed and burned a boat load of marital capital in the process. I appreciate in some cases it’s unavoidable where one party is reasonable and the other is impossible, but generally speaking most people can and do reach an agreement.
And so often it seems to be a zero sum game, with the solicitors creaming off unavoidably large parts of the combined net worth.
Frimley111R said:
When I split up with my ex it was horrible with the CSA and kids. Now when people ask me for advice I say things like 'You're fked, accept it and then this will happen and this is how it will end.' Just factual. It's same kind of advice your friend needs (appreciate this is slightly different).
Another friend battled his ex for nearly 10 years. In the end the money he got out of his house ALL went to the solicitors!
Also, as mentioned earlier, your friend can use that car now as a 'I really want that thing' and then concede it, giving her the impression of a win. She is hurt and hates him and will do anything to hurt him unfortunately and that may never change
I hated giving away so much but in the end it was better than a weekly stshow.
Also very true. Life is so damn short, going into battle mode will add years to the process. And untold anguish. Fascinated to see where I'll end up, ultimately.ked, accept it and then this will happen and this is how it will end.' Just factual. It's same kind of advice your friend needs (appreciate this is slightly different).Another friend battled his ex for nearly 10 years. In the end the money he got out of his house ALL went to the solicitors!
Also, as mentioned earlier, your friend can use that car now as a 'I really want that thing' and then concede it, giving her the impression of a win. She is hurt and hates him and will do anything to hurt him unfortunately and that may never change
I hated giving away so much but in the end it was better than a weekly s
tshow. theboss said:
Everything assumes in divorce that they will have some grand day in court where a judge takes account of both their stories in detail and hands down a judgement. In reality if you need a judge to make decisions that can’t be made directly between the warring parties then you’ve failed and burned a boat load of marital capital in the process. I appreciate in some cases it’s unavoidable where one party is reasonable and the other is impossible, but generally speaking most people can and do reach an agreement.
Even if the split is agreed, it still has to be signed off by the Court as being fair doesn’t it? Our friends ex-husband is prepared to walk away with a modest cash settlement - her solicitor thinks it’s unlikely she’ll be able to keep her pension intact which she’s banking on as she hasn’t got long before she can retire.
Sheepshanks said:
theboss said:
Everything assumes in divorce that they will have some grand day in court where a judge takes account of both their stories in detail and hands down a judgement. In reality if you need a judge to make decisions that can’t be made directly between the warring parties then you’ve failed and burned a boat load of marital capital in the process. I appreciate in some cases it’s unavoidable where one party is reasonable and the other is impossible, but generally speaking most people can and do reach an agreement.
Even if the split is agreed, it still has to be signed off by the Court as being fair doesn’t it? Our friends ex-husband is prepared to walk away with a modest cash settlement - her solicitor thinks it’s unlikely she’ll be able to keep her pension intact which she’s banking on as she hasn’t got long before she can retire.
Collectingbrass said:
Sheepshanks said:
theboss said:
Everything assumes in divorce that they will have some grand day in court where a judge takes account of both their stories in detail and hands down a judgement. In reality if you need a judge to make decisions that can’t be made directly between the warring parties then you’ve failed and burned a boat load of marital capital in the process. I appreciate in some cases it’s unavoidable where one party is reasonable and the other is impossible, but generally speaking most people can and do reach an agreement.
Even if the split is agreed, it still has to be signed off by the Court as being fair doesn’t it? Our friends ex-husband is prepared to walk away with a modest cash settlement - her solicitor thinks it’s unlikely she’ll be able to keep her pension intact which she’s banking on as she hasn’t got long before she can retire.
It cost me a lot financially but I am in a great place now. This week my final matter with my solicitor was closed, 18 months and over £60k since I first met my solicitor again. And I can honestly say I would do it all again in a heartbeat to maintain my excellent relationship with my children if nothing else.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff