ChatterBank0 min ago
Divorce settlement
My sister and her husband (now ex) were joint owners as tenants in common of their matrimonial home. Just over six years ago he left to live with another woman, and from that time didn't pay anything towards the household costs. My sister has paid all of the mortgage payments, all of the endowment payments, all of the council tax payments, and all utility bills including insurance! A recent calculation showed that the total of all these payments ove the six year plu period amounts to in excess of �25.000 (twenty five thousand pounds).
The ex husband has now been made bankrupt and the official receiver wants to force a sale of the property so that his 50% share of the equity in the house will pay his debts. My sister asked her solicitor if she could at least claim half of the aforementioned �25,000 expenses incurred since he left as he would be getting half share of the house. Her reply left me gobsmacked!! She reckons that hissolicitor would claim that his share of the expenses would be offset by my sister having to pay him rent for her use of his 50% share of the property!! Surely no court in the land would agree to that. her solicitor advised her not even to try as it could end up costing dearly in court fees!!
I know this seems long winded but surely that can't be right??? Any advice from anyone in the know would be most appreciated!!
The ex husband has now been made bankrupt and the official receiver wants to force a sale of the property so that his 50% share of the equity in the house will pay his debts. My sister asked her solicitor if she could at least claim half of the aforementioned �25,000 expenses incurred since he left as he would be getting half share of the house. Her reply left me gobsmacked!! She reckons that hissolicitor would claim that his share of the expenses would be offset by my sister having to pay him rent for her use of his 50% share of the property!! Surely no court in the land would agree to that. her solicitor advised her not even to try as it could end up costing dearly in court fees!!
I know this seems long winded but surely that can't be right??? Any advice from anyone in the know would be most appreciated!!
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by George38. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Her worry is that if they take have to her to court to force a sale and loses, she will have to pay court costsmaking her 50% equity effectively worth less. I suggested telling them that she didn't live in her ex husbands half of the house so there would be no rent to pay, Her solicitor thinks that wouldn't wash!!
Yes, the joint tenancy was changed to protect the interests of both parties. She has no problem with the 50/50 share of the house, it's the lack of any further payment towards what is after all half his property that she seems destined never to recover!! �12.500 that he should have been paying but didn't!!
Don't forget he could have forced the sale to get his half of the equity at the time of the divorce if she could not afford to buy him out.
She has had whole benefit of the house for six years without acknowledging his interest by paying rent to him. He has allowed her continue to occupy the house.
This is of course assuming there are no dependent children.
Had the house been sold and she rented a very modest flat for 6 years at �400 that would be over �28000 in rent plus council tax and bills.
Had the house been sold six years ago and they each received half of the equity they would both have had the benefit of the money.
Your sister was very badly advised at the time of the divorce - she should have bought him out so the house was entirely hers, or sold up and divided the assets and made a frest start.
If there are dependent children the situation is different.
She has had whole benefit of the house for six years without acknowledging his interest by paying rent to him. He has allowed her continue to occupy the house.
This is of course assuming there are no dependent children.
Had the house been sold and she rented a very modest flat for 6 years at �400 that would be over �28000 in rent plus council tax and bills.
Had the house been sold six years ago and they each received half of the equity they would both have had the benefit of the money.
Your sister was very badly advised at the time of the divorce - she should have bought him out so the house was entirely hers, or sold up and divided the assets and made a frest start.
If there are dependent children the situation is different.
when i divorced my first wife,she left and was happy to let me live in the house until she needed her half of the house value,i paid the bills and mortgage for 10 yrs,and when she wanted her piece of meat,the house was valued and i had to pay her 50% of the equity in the house at that time,it suited both of us,but i did try and get it reduced,but to no avail,your sister is very lucky she was able to pay all the bills in that time,life goes on,tell her not to be greedy and take what is on offer,move on and put it down to experience in life.
Ah! If it were only that simple! Her owing him rent for the use of his share of the property is fair comment, but things are complicated by the fact that there is a reasonable chunk of kand attached to the house and forms part of the whole property. Her ex used the property as his place of business and continued to use the adjacent land for storing vehicles, equipment and materials till his bankruptcy nearly a year ago. That would seem to take care of the rent side of things meaning he would still owe my sister a fair chunk of money!
1 to 8 of 8
