House Equity Entitlement
Discussion
Have got a colleague who wants her ex off the mortgage and house deeds.
They bought the house in joint names. He worked, she stayed at home to bring up the children for 2 years. He then left her and their 2 children, which was 6 years ago. He paid the mortgage for 6 months and once she found full time work he stopped all payments and she took it over. So for the last 5.5 years he's not paid a penny towards the mortgage, though its still all in joint names.
She's done quite alot of improvements (decoration, new bathroom, kitchen, etc) that have added value.
Maintenace payments for the children have been sporadic, but he says that those payments count towards the mortgage too. (They did it amicably originally, so not through the CSA).
He is now after half the equity of the property. She can't afford to buy him out and neither does she want to move.
The question is, what is he entitled to, if anything?
I don't think he is - I thought that if you didn't contribute to the mortgage for a certain period of time, you waive any rights of entitlement?
What's the PH view, or are there any solicitors who'd care to comment?
They bought the house in joint names. He worked, she stayed at home to bring up the children for 2 years. He then left her and their 2 children, which was 6 years ago. He paid the mortgage for 6 months and once she found full time work he stopped all payments and she took it over. So for the last 5.5 years he's not paid a penny towards the mortgage, though its still all in joint names.
She's done quite alot of improvements (decoration, new bathroom, kitchen, etc) that have added value.
Maintenace payments for the children have been sporadic, but he says that those payments count towards the mortgage too. (They did it amicably originally, so not through the CSA).
He is now after half the equity of the property. She can't afford to buy him out and neither does she want to move.
The question is, what is he entitled to, if anything?
I don't think he is - I thought that if you didn't contribute to the mortgage for a certain period of time, you waive any rights of entitlement?
What's the PH view, or are there any solicitors who'd care to comment?
The mortgage is in joint names so he's entitled to his share. I say go for 1/2, if the ball was on the other foot she would probably go for half. Also, if it was her on here asking for advise on what to go for, everyone would say half. Blokes get shafted too often by women, just do a search on here. Just my 2 peneth.
He is not entitled to half as she is responsible for the children which adds an additional percentage of the property to her. She will need to present a financial application via the Civil Court, her case will be strenghthened if she has kept all the reciepts with regard to the home improvements.
If he fails to co-operate the Judge could rule that the whole property is transferred to her sole name, without his consent.
If he fails to co-operate the Judge could rule that the whole property is transferred to her sole name, without his consent.
Okay, usual caveats apply, I do property gov, not family etc.
Tell her to go see a family solicitor. Even if he is entitled to half the equity, if they are his kids he has an obligation to ensure that they have a roof over their heads.
This next bit is a little 'nasty' if you are looking at it from the blokes side but what she wants to get is a court order confirming that he has a 50% interest in the house but that that equity is to be keep in the house, to provide a home for their children, until the eldest is 18 or leaves full time education, whichever is the latter. Blokes equity share is protected by way of a charge so all fair there. He gets a legal document confirming his entitlement, she and kids have roof over their heads till they leave education/are over 18. tell her to make sure the order also specifies that the equity can be used to buy another property if she wishes to move.
Edit to say she could go WG’s way as well, told you I’m not Family law, having said that I think my way is ‘fairer’.
>> Edited by rude-boy on Tuesday 22 March 19:06
Tell her to go see a family solicitor. Even if he is entitled to half the equity, if they are his kids he has an obligation to ensure that they have a roof over their heads.
This next bit is a little 'nasty' if you are looking at it from the blokes side but what she wants to get is a court order confirming that he has a 50% interest in the house but that that equity is to be keep in the house, to provide a home for their children, until the eldest is 18 or leaves full time education, whichever is the latter. Blokes equity share is protected by way of a charge so all fair there. He gets a legal document confirming his entitlement, she and kids have roof over their heads till they leave education/are over 18. tell her to make sure the order also specifies that the equity can be used to buy another property if she wishes to move.
Edit to say she could go WG’s way as well, told you I’m not Family law, having said that I think my way is ‘fairer’.
>> Edited by rude-boy on Tuesday 22 March 19:06
Migsy said:
Have got a colleague who wants her ex off the mortgage and house deeds.
They bought the house in joint names. He worked, she stayed at home to bring up the children for 2 years. He then left her and their 2 children, which was 6 years ago. He paid the mortgage for 6 months and once she found full time work he stopped all payments and she took it over. So for the last 5.5 years he's not paid a penny towards the mortgage, though its still all in joint names.
She's done quite alot of improvements (decoration, new bathroom, kitchen, etc) that have added value.
Maintenace payments for the children have been sporadic, but he says that those payments count towards the mortgage too. (They did it amicably originally, so not through the CSA).
He is now after half the equity of the property. She can't afford to buy him out and neither does she want to move.
The question is, what is he entitled to, if anything?
I don't think he is - I thought that if you didn't contribute to the mortgage for a certain period of time, you waive any rights of entitlement?
What's the PH view, or are there any solicitors who'd care to comment?
technically the maintenance payments do amount to a proportion of mortgage payment, although unless it's CSA or court enforced then a lender will not take it into account when considering affordability.
the mortgage lender will assume halfers and will assess ability to raise capital on that basis unless advised differently by sols/both parties.
my view is that unfortunately as his name is on the deeds then he owns half
this could be reduced in settlement by mutual agreement although lenders would need sols confirmation
hope these morsels help
minimax said:
this could be reduced in settlement by mutual agreement although lenders would need sols confirmation
That's kind of what has brought it to a head. I've worked with her for 4 years and there have been mutual agreements to an amount he would take as a settlement.
However, each time she is in a position to re-mortgage on her own, incuding the one off payment to him, he raises the amount - now culminating in the 50% demand.
wedge girl said:
He is not entitled to half as she is responsible for the children which adds an additional percentage of the property to her. She will need to present a financial application via the Civil Court, her case will be strenghthened if she has kept all the reciepts with regard to the home improvements.
If he fails to co-operate the Judge could rule that the whole property is transferred to her sole name, without his consent.
Thanks for that advice. He's unlikely to co-operate judging by his actions, not just in relation to the house or maintenance payments, but constantly letting the children down too - agreeing to see them, or do something with them, then pulling out last minute.
rude-boy said:
Okay, usual caveats apply, I do property gov, not family etc.
Tell her to go see a family solicitor. Even if he is entitled to half the equity, if they are his kids he has an obligation to ensure that they have a roof over their heads.
This next bit is a little 'nasty' if you are looking at it from the blokes side but what she wants to get is a court order confirming that he has a 50% interest in the house but that that equity is to be keep in the house, to provide a home for their children, until the eldest is 18 or leaves full time education, whichever is the latter. Blokes equity share is protected by way of a charge so all fair there. He gets a legal document confirming his entitlement, she and kids have roof over their heads till they leave education/are over 18. tell her to make sure the order also specifies that the equity can be used to buy another property if she wishes to move.
Edit to say she could go WG’s way as well, told you I’m not Family law, having said that I think my way is ‘fairer’.
>> Edited by rude-boy on Tuesday 22 March 19:06
I don't think he's in any rush to get his hands on the cash as it were. Yep, agree on seeing a solicitor - and I'm sure you can get a first session free. I can help her out on that front.
wedge girl said:
You can mail me any specific questions, I am not a lawyer but I am going through the same process, and I have a good barrister.
It's barely a week since you were cursing your lawyers because of the mess they had had got you in.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=1&f=141&t=161789&h=0
Kissed and made up now then?
wedge girl said:
You can mail me any specific questions, I am not a lawyer but I am going through the same process, and I have a good barrister.
Thanks for the offer Wedge Girl. I'm going to get my colleague to read this thread (not sure when, as work have put surf control on all PCs!) and take it from there. So I may well be in touch with you!
sparkythecat said:
You can mail me any specific questions, I am not a lawyer but I am going through the same process, and I have a good barrister.
It's barely a week since you were cursing your lawyers because of the mess they had had got you in.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=1&f=141&t=161789&h=0
Kissed and made up now then?
I think you will find it was the Judge who made an error which put my life in danger and not my Legal team.
mxdi said:
My friend has just been in this situation, as far as she was saying, she was divorcing at the same time though... she saw a solicitor who suggested she make an offer to buy him out, luckily he accepted her first offer, which was actually quite low.
Ahh..good point, my colleague was not married to him. Anyone know if that makes any difference? Suspect not.
Yep, a lower offer can work. Did for me when I bought the ex out of our house. Hasn't in this case though.
wedge girl said:
wedge girl said:
You can mail me any specific questions, I am not a lawyer but I am going through the same process, and I have a good barrister.
It's barely a week since you were cursing your lawyers because of the mess they had had got you in.
<a href="http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=1&f=141&t=161789&h=0">www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=1&f=141&t=161789&h=0</a>
Kissed and made up now then?
I think you will find it was the Judge who made an error which put my life in danger and not my Legal team.
I've read your post again and still feel that you were badly advised.
Who advised you to go before the court in the first place?
And who reassured you that your new identity would not be revealed?
Given your present unenviable predicament I see little evidence that your barrister is in any way worthy of your recommendation.
sparkythecat said:
I've read your post again and still feel that you were badly advised.
Who advised you to go before the court in the first place?
And who reassured you that your new identity would not be revealed?
Given your present unenviable predicament I see little evidence that your barrister is in any way worthy of your recommendation.
I don't wish to hijack this thread, but it was the police who made the original application to a District Judge that I be given a new identity, this was then granted by a District Judge.
It was my decision to bring criminal charges against my husband for several counts of rape, false imprisonment, and indecent assult and battery, this decision was supported by a significant amount of physical evidence.
It was my Daughters decision to bring criminal charges against him, and whilst the CPS has decided not to persue this on her behalf, I will not detail the allegations here, as she may wish to persue this further.
I have had to go to civil court in order to defend my position with regard to both my children and my home.
My Solicitor presented documents to the civil court to support my financial application, documents were submitted to my Husband by my solicitor, with my Name and Address omitted, on the day of the initial hearing, the Deputy District Judge handed the original documents to my Husband, under the protests of my Barrister.
I still have complete faith in the Civil system, with out it my children and I would not be safe, my circumstances are extreme, mine is the longest case currently on file at my court,many Deputy District Judges have never been faced with a case such as mine and my Barrister has needed to use draconian orders which fortunately are not common place.
In what way do you feel I was badly advised? Other than address these matters through the Judicial System, what should I do?
I'm not a lawyer, and the shoe was on the other foot for me, but since when has that stopped anyone having an opinion 
I was unmarried and was joint name on the mortgage. My solicitor said that meant I could start at 50:50 split on the equity. Because I stayed at home looking after the kids I made no contribution to the mortgage, so her proportion went up. Me not paying the mortgage didn't really matter - I certainly didn't waive any rights to the equity. In the end, she did xyz and I signed away any rights to the equity on the understanding I wasn't liable for the half the debt (the mortgage). My solicitor thought I was stupid for doing so, and I had to sign that I listened to his advice but chose to ignore it.
Additionally (sorry for the long post), prior to this, my ex was in the process of getting rid of her husband. He was a joint name on her previous mortgage and recived the same advice as me. Every 3 months a new demand for his proportion of the equity would come through from his solicitor; because of house price rises, they would get a new valuation on the property, and increase the assumed equity. In the end, it cost me 30k cash to get rid of the bugger, and I assumed his half of the debt (BTW he didn't actually contribute to the mortgage while they were seperated). I'm such a knob
I was unmarried and was joint name on the mortgage. My solicitor said that meant I could start at 50:50 split on the equity. Because I stayed at home looking after the kids I made no contribution to the mortgage, so her proportion went up. Me not paying the mortgage didn't really matter - I certainly didn't waive any rights to the equity. In the end, she did xyz and I signed away any rights to the equity on the understanding I wasn't liable for the half the debt (the mortgage). My solicitor thought I was stupid for doing so, and I had to sign that I listened to his advice but chose to ignore it.
Additionally (sorry for the long post), prior to this, my ex was in the process of getting rid of her husband. He was a joint name on her previous mortgage and recived the same advice as me. Every 3 months a new demand for his proportion of the equity would come through from his solicitor; because of house price rises, they would get a new valuation on the property, and increase the assumed equity. In the end, it cost me 30k cash to get rid of the bugger, and I assumed his half of the debt (BTW he didn't actually contribute to the mortgage while they were seperated). I'm such a knob
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff