Partner buying me out
Discussion
Quick question - amicable split with my ex. Not married, no kids.
Co-own a house and she is going to buy out my share. We have valued property, taken into account a few other bits and agreed a figure for my share. She has also lined up a new mortgage to take over the current joint mortgage.
She has engaged a solicitor and is now suggesting I need a solicitor to organise the transfer of equity - is this correct? I suggested I would just deal with her solicitor directly, but apparently that's not an option...
Thoughts?
Co-own a house and she is going to buy out my share. We have valued property, taken into account a few other bits and agreed a figure for my share. She has also lined up a new mortgage to take over the current joint mortgage.
She has engaged a solicitor and is now suggesting I need a solicitor to organise the transfer of equity - is this correct? I suggested I would just deal with her solicitor directly, but apparently that's not an option...
Thoughts?
OP - make sure this loophole is fully closed https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/budget-gives-...
Essentially they screwed up a previous Stamp Duty change, whereby if an assets split was not undertaken a certain way legally, the person buying a new home would have to pay higher rate stamp duty.
This unintended consequence was announced as addressed in November, but just check it is in force already/doesn't apply to you as not married.
Essentially they screwed up a previous Stamp Duty change, whereby if an assets split was not undertaken a certain way legally, the person buying a new home would have to pay higher rate stamp duty.
This unintended consequence was announced as addressed in November, but just check it is in force already/doesn't apply to you as not married.
Edited by hyphen on Friday 6th April 15:43
guitarcarfanatic said:
I suggested I would just deal with her solicitor directly, but apparently that's not an option...
Depends what you mean by 'deal with' Her solicitor can't act for you. Immediate conflict of interest.You don't need a solicitor to transfer title. A properly qualified conveyancer can do it just as well.
Indeed , there is nothing stopping you going down the d-i-y route if you want but do you really want that burden?
And what comeback will you have if anything goes pear shaped?
Have a look at these links for things you need to consider.
http://www.hip-consultant.co.uk/blog/transfers-of-...
http://freeconveyancingadvice.co.uk/remortgages-tr...
I'm a tight fisted old git, but would I d-i-y in such circumstances? No. YMMV.
The strict legal answer is that you can be unrepresented.
Why the f
k you'd want to take that risk though I have no idea.
FWIW from experience of acting for Clients where the other side have refused to instruct a solicitor i have had to double their bills as the work load and check and balances i have to put in place are monumental, especially if the other party 'thinks' that they know what they are doing.
Last year i had a retired litigator trying to act in person on the sale of their house. It was a fking nightmare from start to end as they would not accept that they were spending half the time talking about st they knew nothing about and the other half the time wasting time.
Just to be clear on this, if you are selling your share of your hose to your co owner and there is a mortgage on the title then you would be utterly fking nuts to go unrepresented. If i were instructed to do so by my Client I'd have you nicely tucked up and still liable for the existing mortgage long after you had sent me your ID1 and executed TR1 if you had not asked for the appropriate undertakings.
Why the f
k you'd want to take that risk though I have no idea.FWIW from experience of acting for Clients where the other side have refused to instruct a solicitor i have had to double their bills as the work load and check and balances i have to put in place are monumental, especially if the other party 'thinks' that they know what they are doing.
Last year i had a retired litigator trying to act in person on the sale of their house. It was a f
king nightmare from start to end as they would not accept that they were spending half the time talking about st they knew nothing about and the other half the time wasting time. Just to be clear on this, if you are selling your share of your hose to your co owner and there is a mortgage on the title then you would be utterly f
king nuts to go unrepresented. If i were instructed to do so by my Client I'd have you nicely tucked up and still liable for the existing mortgage long after you had sent me your ID1 and executed TR1 if you had not asked for the appropriate undertakings.Rude-boy said:
Just to be clear on this, if you are selling your share of your hose to your co owner and there is a mortgage on the title then you would be utterly fking nuts to go unrepresented. If i were instructed to do so by my Client I'd have you nicely tucked up and still liable for the existing mortgage long after you had sent me your ID1 and executed TR1 if you had not asked for the appropriate undertakings.
So there you have it, if you want to sell your half of your garden hose to your ex partner, get a solicitor.king nuts to go unrepresented. If i were instructed to do so by my Client I'd have you nicely tucked up and still liable for the existing mortgage long after you had sent me your ID1 and executed TR1 if you had not asked for the appropriate undertakings.Rude-boy said:
The strict legal answer is that you can be unrepresented.
Why the fk you'd want to take that risk though I have no idea.
FWIW from experience of acting for Clients where the other side have refused to instruct a solicitor i have had to double their bills as the work load and check and balances i have to put in place are monumental, especially if the other party 'thinks' that they know what they are doing.
Last year i had a retired litigator trying to act in person on the sale of their house. It was a fking nightmare from start to end as they would not accept that they were spending half the time talking about st they knew nothing about and the other half the time wasting time.
Just to be clear on this, if you are selling your share of your hose to your co owner and there is a mortgage on the title then you would be utterly fking nuts to go unrepresented. If i were instructed to do so by my Client I'd have you nicely tucked up and still liable for the existing mortgage long after you had sent me your ID1 and executed TR1 if you had not asked for the appropriate undertakings.
Are you saying you really would do that, or that you 'could' do that, if you were acting unethically or carelessly unless the client had specifically requested that you do that.Why the f
k you'd want to take that risk though I have no idea.FWIW from experience of acting for Clients where the other side have refused to instruct a solicitor i have had to double their bills as the work load and check and balances i have to put in place are monumental, especially if the other party 'thinks' that they know what they are doing.
Last year i had a retired litigator trying to act in person on the sale of their house. It was a f
king nightmare from start to end as they would not accept that they were spending half the time talking about st they knew nothing about and the other half the time wasting time. Just to be clear on this, if you are selling your share of your hose to your co owner and there is a mortgage on the title then you would be utterly f
king nuts to go unrepresented. If i were instructed to do so by my Client I'd have you nicely tucked up and still liable for the existing mortgage long after you had sent me your ID1 and executed TR1 if you had not asked for the appropriate undertakings.You surely wouldn't approach every legal matter in such an adverserial manner?
If I asked you to draw up a legal contract to rent my garage to Mr X, I wouldn't be best pleased if you also made Mr X liable for the mortgage payments on my house if I defaulted, simply because Mr X was ignorant of the presence of such a clause in the contract.
I presume you are just being 'playful' in order to encourage the OP to be more cautious?
It may sound simple and amicable but something may go wrong,her solicitor could f*** up. Get yourself a solicitor,just in case.
I went through the same procedure,a long time ago so things may have changed.My then partner bought me out and stayed in the house. We had a joint mortgage. So if my memory is correct SHE had to buy the house from HER and I. The joint mortgage was paid off and she had a new mortgage in her name.
Does that make sense? Now then,if its considered a house purchase what about stamp duty?
I went through the same procedure,a long time ago so things may have changed.My then partner bought me out and stayed in the house. We had a joint mortgage. So if my memory is correct SHE had to buy the house from HER and I. The joint mortgage was paid off and she had a new mortgage in her name.
Does that make sense? Now then,if its considered a house purchase what about stamp duty?
Monkey - that was a watered down response ;_)
2. You surely wouldn't approach every legal matter in such an adverserial manner?
3. If I asked you to draw up a legal contract to rent my garage to Mr X, I wouldn't be best pleased if you also made Mr X liable for the mortgage payments on my house if I defaulted, simply because Mr X was ignorant of the presence of such a clause in the contract.
4. I presume you are just being 'playful' in order to encourage the OP to be more cautious?Hi,
I have numbered to help me answer.
1. I would never do such a thing out of my intent. I am retained by my Client to act in their best interests and to advise them. FWIW I am very anti adversarial behaviours in conveyancing, leave that to the litigators. BUT in order to protect my Clients from those with less scruples you also need to know the dodges and wheezes that they could pull. If i happened to have a Client whose instructions were to make it as difficult and painful as possible for the other party then there is quite a lot i could do if they were not clued up or represented. If i had a Client who was asking me to help out the other party a bit as they were on their uppers i would gladly do all i could to help without crossing the boundaries. If i were to go full hardball I would have to tread a line between ethics (have to be careful not to breach) and morality (find me the rule saying that i have to show this.) Careless would be to entrust the sale of the most valuable asset you own to and have liabilities wrapped up in to someone other than one who knows what they are doing.
2. Not in the slightest. I hate people who think that conveyancing is an adversarial area of the law. They don't usually last long in property if they take that attitude and personally, subject to instructions, if i think that the other party's legal people are out of line i have no problems in telling them directly and that if they don't start playing nicely I'll start to show my teeth. There is an awful lot you can do if you know the ropes that so many, even in the profession forget, ignore or overlook. Far better to be two people trying to get a deal that two Clients have agreed over the line than to play point scoring.
3. It would be quite a feat if i could pull that one off! To be honest though there is no way that i would dream of doing something like that. I act in accordance with instructions. In 16+ years qualified i have only ever had one instruction to 'fk them at every turn you get the chance to, i want to make this as painful for them as they have made the last 5 years for me' . I talked them into agreeing to let me play fair and get it done faster than keep lingering.
4. Yes, very much so. I am a nice guy as a rule and to be a nice guy and not get rolled over you need to know the tricks that those with less spine or morality (or a viscous client) might pull. There are quite a few here that could be pulled if the OP's ex has a well trained attack dog as a solicitor and I will never understand why people will even consider dealing with a matter affecting such a valuable asset with so many pitfalls and potential bear traps just to save likely less than 1% of the value of that asset.
irememberyou said:
Rude-boy said:
The strict legal answer is that you can be unrepresented.
Why the fk you'd want to take that risk though I have no idea.
FWIW from experience of acting for Clients where the other side have refused to instruct a solicitor i have had to double their bills as the work load and check and balances i have to put in place are monumental, especially if the other party 'thinks' that they know what they are doing.
Last year i had a retired litigator trying to act in person on the sale of their house. It was a fking nightmare from start to end as they would not accept that they were spending half the time talking about st they knew nothing about and the other half the time wasting time.
Just to be clear on this, if you are selling your share of your hose to your co owner and there is a mortgage on the title then you would be utterly fking nuts to go unrepresented. If i were instructed to do so by my Client I'd have you nicely tucked up and still liable for the existing mortgage long after you had sent me your ID1 and executed TR1 if you had not asked for the appropriate undertakings.
1. Are you saying you really would do that, or that you 'could' do that, if you were acting unethically or carelessly unless the client had specifically requested that you do that.Why the f
k you'd want to take that risk though I have no idea.FWIW from experience of acting for Clients where the other side have refused to instruct a solicitor i have had to double their bills as the work load and check and balances i have to put in place are monumental, especially if the other party 'thinks' that they know what they are doing.
Last year i had a retired litigator trying to act in person on the sale of their house. It was a f
king nightmare from start to end as they would not accept that they were spending half the time talking about st they knew nothing about and the other half the time wasting time. Just to be clear on this, if you are selling your share of your hose to your co owner and there is a mortgage on the title then you would be utterly f
king nuts to go unrepresented. If i were instructed to do so by my Client I'd have you nicely tucked up and still liable for the existing mortgage long after you had sent me your ID1 and executed TR1 if you had not asked for the appropriate undertakings.2. You surely wouldn't approach every legal matter in such an adverserial manner?
3. If I asked you to draw up a legal contract to rent my garage to Mr X, I wouldn't be best pleased if you also made Mr X liable for the mortgage payments on my house if I defaulted, simply because Mr X was ignorant of the presence of such a clause in the contract.
4. I presume you are just being 'playful' in order to encourage the OP to be more cautious?
I have numbered to help me answer.
1. I would never do such a thing out of my intent. I am retained by my Client to act in their best interests and to advise them. FWIW I am very anti adversarial behaviours in conveyancing, leave that to the litigators. BUT in order to protect my Clients from those with less scruples you also need to know the dodges and wheezes that they could pull. If i happened to have a Client whose instructions were to make it as difficult and painful as possible for the other party then there is quite a lot i could do if they were not clued up or represented. If i had a Client who was asking me to help out the other party a bit as they were on their uppers i would gladly do all i could to help without crossing the boundaries. If i were to go full hardball I would have to tread a line between ethics (have to be careful not to breach) and morality (find me the rule saying that i have to show this.) Careless would be to entrust the sale of the most valuable asset you own to and have liabilities wrapped up in to someone other than one who knows what they are doing.
2. Not in the slightest. I hate people who think that conveyancing is an adversarial area of the law. They don't usually last long in property if they take that attitude and personally, subject to instructions, if i think that the other party's legal people are out of line i have no problems in telling them directly and that if they don't start playing nicely I'll start to show my teeth. There is an awful lot you can do if you know the ropes that so many, even in the profession forget, ignore or overlook. Far better to be two people trying to get a deal that two Clients have agreed over the line than to play point scoring.
3. It would be quite a feat if i could pull that one off! To be honest though there is no way that i would dream of doing something like that. I act in accordance with instructions. In 16+ years qualified i have only ever had one instruction to 'f
k them at every turn you get the chance to, i want to make this as painful for them as they have made the last 5 years for me' . I talked them into agreeing to let me play fair and get it done faster than keep lingering.4. Yes, very much so. I am a nice guy as a rule and to be a nice guy and not get rolled over you need to know the tricks that those with less spine or morality (or a viscous client) might pull. There are quite a few here that could be pulled if the OP's ex has a well trained attack dog as a solicitor and I will never understand why people will even consider dealing with a matter affecting such a valuable asset with so many pitfalls and potential bear traps just to save likely less than 1% of the value of that asset.
Monkeylegend said:
Rude-boy said:
Monkey - that was a watered down response ;_)
It just reminded me that I need to get a new garden hose, mine has some pin prick leaks and I get wet everytime I use it, but I am now debating whether to ask my other half to pay half.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff