Another divorce question, financial

Andy Boz | 19:25 Thu 26th Oct 2006 | Law

2 Answers

Freind and his wife separated, now divorced.
Ex council house, bought by her. Then they met, he moved in, and then remortgaged in joint names. Then a loan against the house in joint names.
Then they fell out, and the house has been sold by the building society.
He has today had notification of the sale and charges, and it turns out he will not get a penny. The reason he was given was his name is not on the land registry.
However she has come out of it very nicely, about 16k.
Now the question is this, if he is liable for the debts on the loan and the mortgage, how can he not be due a share of the equity. Also the estate agents charged 5k on a 90k house. Does this seem a trifle steep?
I thankyou

GBH With Intent

Endowment Claims Handlers

Answers

1 to 2 of 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Andy Boz. 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.

chitchat

Andy - I would get your friend to see a solicitor. When you say the buidling society sold the house, was it a repossession? If he was on the mortgage but not registered with the land registry then someone has probably made a mistake. My guess would be the solicitor. He would need to get this checked out, coz it should have been done as part of the conveyencing.

My estate agent charged me 1.5% plus vat, so yes i would say the estate agents have charged a lot for a 90k house. He would need to check the contract he signed with them. I suspect they will have it all in writing and he wont have a leg to stand on.

Hope he gets it sorted - its a lot of money to lose.

Andy Boz

Question Author

Thankyou for the prompt reply.
Yes the house was repossessed by the building society.
He (and I) were under the impression that when it was all over, the proceeds would be split.
I have advised him to see a brief. He was originally advised by a solicitor not to fight for a share, because that would make him liable to pay for his legal aid, that he has for his access case for his daughter from this relationship.
All in all he has lost his daughter, his wife, his house, his pride, and a considerable sum of money, and his wife has it all.
Just seems very wrong.
The figure of 1.5% is what I thought as well.
Thanks

1 to 2 of 2

Do you know the answer?