Is she entitled to anything?

[cruz1]

I bought a property with my ex in joint names 5 years ago, we split up shortly after and i never got around to removing her name from the deeds or mortgage. I have just recieved a letter from her solicitor saying she wants to remove her name and to negotiate a settlement. I am confused as she never paid a penny towards the mortgage, bills or anything. I think it a little unfair.
.
I am now told that i cannot remove her name because i have mortgage arrears, and i tried to remortgage but was refused, so seem to be stuck. Apparently if i dont remove her name soon, she will pursue an application to the Court for an order for sale of property.

I don't want to sell, as i now have a daughter with my new partner and i was hoping the house would be a nest-egg for her future.

[Catso]

Yes, your ex is entitled. You were living together, but more importantly, she had her name on the deeds and the mortgage. Therefore she was a joint tenant or tenant in common, and she has part ownership of the property. It doesn't matter whether she contributed in monetary terms or not. You will have to negotiate a settlement.

I think it would be illegal for you to just remove her name from the documents. I doubt any organistaion would do so, anyway, without authority from her - that would be theft.

[cruz1]

Not what i was hoping to hear.
Any ideas as to what she would be entitled to? I think its a little unfair, considering the most she ever contributed was probably a pint of milk.
She only actually lived in the property for 3 weeks till i found out she was seeing someone else.

[Catso]

Well, I'm sure there'd be other things to be taken into consideration, but if what you say is true, the it would be patently unfair if she were to gain any significant proportion of the property. She may well just be punting for a bit of a pay off for her OK to remove her name from the paperwork IE �100s rather than �1000s. It is very odd to raise this 5 years on, rather than at the time - it does sound rather 'speculative'.

The court order thing just sounds like a bit of sabre-rattling.

But these things can go awry, and you really ought to seek some professional advice. The CAB (free) can probably outline the basic position, but I think you should involve a solicitor for advice and to do the communicating with her, so as not to inadvertently compromise your position.

[jedimistress]

She may not wish for much, just to have her name removed. Therfore she can move on and perhaps raise finance on a new property herself, or to avoid being brought too down if you have arrears.

[Buenchico]

(2-part post):

I note that you say that your ex's name is on the mortgage, as well as on the deeds. This means that there is 'joint and several liability' i.e. the lender has the right to pursue either (or both) of you for any debts in relation to non-repayment of the mortgage.

You state you have mortgage arrears. It's quite possible that your ex has received a letter, either from your lender or from their debt collection agency, stating that they intend to take legal action against her to collect your mortgage arrears. It would then be perfectly understandable as to why she has decided that it's now time to formally dissolve your financial patnership.

Additionally, it's possible that your ex is finding that she can't get credit because her name appears on a mortgage which is in arrears of payment. The existence of that mortgage prevents her filing a 'notice of disassociation' from you; any other financial problems you might have will also affect her credit rating. Once again, it's easy to see why your ex would want to get things finally sorted out.

As I've indicated, it might be more important to your ex to

[Buenchico]

get her name off of the mortgage rather than to make any great financial gain from the sale of the house.

Unfortunately, you don't start from a particularly strong position with regard to any potential court settlement of your dispute. If only your name appeared on the deeds then your ex would have to show that she had some entitlement to a share in the house. However, both your names appear on the deeds. This means that it would be for you to show that you have some entitlement to part (or all) of her existing half-share in the house. (The fact that you remain in the house and have been paying at least some of the mortgage repayments would obviously be in your favour but you would still be in the position of trying to acquire something which is already legally the property of your ex).

As Catso suggests, you need some legal advice. The CAB is certainly a good starting point but I doubt that you'll be able to avoid engaging the services of a solicitor. Before you do either of these things, however, I recommend writing a letter to her solicitor. This should do the following:
1. Acknowledge receipt of his/her letter.
2. State that you intend to engage the services of a solicitor.
3. Request details of any proposals that your ex's solicitor wishes to make, with regard to finding a resolution, in order that you can pass these to your own solicitor. (The sooner you can find out exactly what your ex is after, the better)

Chris

[Golden Shred]

You are between a rock and a very hard place. Because of the length of the previous answer I shall not go into detail but you should understand (1) that an Order to sell the property will not be refused (2) your ex is entitled to 50% of the remainder after settling the mortgage lender etc (3) your ex may also be able to claim damages against you, and (4) once the legal process starts you will be liable for 3 sets of costs (a) your own (b) your ex's and (c) your mortgage lenders - any messing about, delay, prevarication or opposing by you and the costs bill will be minimum 3 x �12500 say �40000, but could quite easily double. Far from the nest-egg dreaming, I'm afraid that the reality is probably that by Christmas you will be out of the house and, if your half of the remainder does not cover the costs and damages, homeless and awaiting bankruptcy. You need skilled help immediately. The application for an Order may already be with the court and to knock you completely off balance it is possible to arrange a hearing within 3 days of the service on you of a summons (the service is also often arranged for very late evening). Be warned, you need skilled help without delay.

[Catso]

That was thoughtful. If the aim was to worry the man witless, I think you've probably suceeded.

So what you're saying is that any legal decision won't take into account that during the 3 weeks they were together the ex never paid anything towards the property. Nor that she has conspired to let him continue to pay for the property, for 5 years, while its value increased - then she decides to cash in on 'her' nest-egg and in so doing evicts a family with child.

And I thought, by and large, British justice was fundementally fair and reasonable. This has changed my opinion.

[lady_p_gold]

I agree it seems harsh, but then if you buy a property jointly with someone and they then move out even after such a short time, they are not just going to 'disappear' ... maybe if he appealed to her better nature and explained the circumstances she might agree to a more reasonable split. For all you people out there who rush into buying a home jointly with a boyfriends and girlsfriends - beware !!!

[oldhenry]

Judges always seem to favour the 'female half' of a settlement. Why on earth did you jointly buy when she paid nothing to the deal?, she was just waiting for your 'leaving gift'.
I think you'll need to put this down to experience and never trust anyone again with your money.
as the others have said get an expert solicitor fast.

[Golden Shred]

The entitlement, Catso, does not arise through length of occupation. It is simply that the ex and cruz are 50/50 joint owners of a property. This gives the ex the right to occupy half the property, but she did not. cruz then spread out and occupied the whole property, at which point he became liable to pay the ex rent for her half. He did not, but paid the mortgage and maintainance. If it stopped here then in court it would be taken that one equalled the other so all square - crude, I know, but the court will not indulge petty bean counting. However, and this is very important, cruz additionally moves in a woman, and at this point the ex is very much entitled to be paid cash rent. Worse, he adds a child but still pays no rent. A claim for damages therefore arises which the ex will easily win and at a rough guess I would say with compound interest will be around �20000. It is not the ex who is throwing cruz and his tenants out, it is cruz who cannot afford to live there - he simply does not have the necessary money and is a fool living well over his head. The situation cruz is in is very akin to Cathy Come Home - he is already one third of the way down the slippery slope but like Cathy does not realise it or understand that he cannot get back. He is living in a dream world and is already a no-hoper who, like Cathy, will soon be homeless and without money. There are many thousands of cruz's living and sleeping rough on the streets of UK city's.

[cruz1]

In what part of my post did i suggest that i still live at the property? I did not spread myself out, i moved out 3 days after she did. I never moved another woman in, or our baby,the property has been empty for 4 years, while i have been slowly doing work to it.
As for me being a fool living well over his head, how dare you judge someone you don't know. If you are referring to me being refused a remortgage, this was not a decision based on my finances but a problem with the underpinning of the property,which is being dealt with.
I have done nothing wrong here, i asked a simple question, you should have answered based on the facts i gave not just assumed you knew things. Yes i'm on a slippery slope to maybe having to sell the property and giving her any of it. But if i have to, so be it. I will be neither homeless or without money.

[lady_p_gold]

Well it did look from the post as if you were still occupying the property ..... at least people bothered to reply ! It is a strange thing that can happen on here, that threads take on a 'life of their own' (I remember when I once asked what I thought was a simple question about postal voting and ended up being hauled over the coals for no apparent reason) .. but in Golden Shred's defence she was really replying to Catso although the scenario did seem rather graphic (and just as an aside speaking of Cathy Come Home it makes you feel a bit old when you see that fresh faced lad now at the mercy of Pauline Fowler in Eastenders !!!)

[Catso]

I see no need to include personal insults (against cruz1) - you could just have stuck to the facts.

If cruz1's ex is a part-owner of the property, then doesn't cruz1 have a claim against her for all the mortgage payments and hosue maintenance he's been paying, on her behalf, these past 5 years?

[themas]

cruz1 - The way I read it, Golden Shred is trying (deliberately or otherwise) to scare the pants off you. He/she said, in effect, that an Order for Sale would be granted at the drop of a hat when the house was occupied by a family. Judges do have some regard for the realities of a situation and some discretion in this type of case. I do not believe an order would readily be granted in the situation you describe if you were living in the house.

However, as we now know it is empty it is much more likely that an order would be granted. Following Buenchico's advice seems the best approach - including seeing a solicitor.

[Golden Shred]

cruz. I have given my opinion which is that you are a no-hoper and are on the downward slippery slope from which you can never get back, and what you have added confirms that. Consider the Arabic word hubris, and if you come to fully understand it you will realise that your ex has dug a blessed great hole under you into which you have already slipped. The kindest thing that can be said at the moment is that you fall into the category of their are none so blind as those that won't see.
lady_p_gold. Cathy Come Home had a powerful effect and lasting effect upon me (and other people) about, what, forty years ago? It completely changed forever my perception of certain things. I was working at the time in the slum clearances of Attercliffe and Tinsley and the people there I somehow regarded as being from another planet. After Cathy Come Home for the first time I understood.
Catso. No. The ex's legals will state the case against cruz as that for his own ends for five years cruz has prevaricated and deviously frustrated the sale of the property to the detriment of the ex. The property should have been sold five years ago, but cruz occupied the whole property and made mortgage payments etc that were completely unnecessary and solely for his own ends and for no other purpose. Accordingly, these payments are of no account and will be totally disregarded by the court. However, cruz has tampered with the property and damaged and devalued it by undermining and has further damaged the ex by defaulting on the mortgage and bringing her into disrepute. Not less than �20000 will be added for property damage, I would expect the claim for rent to rise to �30000 and the personal damages to be about �5000.

[Golden Shred]

... there are none so blind as those that won't see ...

[Catso]

I'm surprised you haven't managed to work in a claim about cruz1using the proceeds of his crime against his ex to finance Islamic terrorism and will be sent to Guantanemo Bay for his sins.

[lady_p_gold]

It was a very very moving drama and those closing scenes are something that you would never forget ...