Three Quarters Of Gps Want To Go On...
News2 mins ago
Do i get half of the proceeds?
33 Answers
I bought a property with my ex 5 years ago my name is on the deeds. I left him for someone else shortly after, so he has paid the mortgage and bills etc. I have since found that he is selling up and it is worth 4 x what we bought it for. Am i right in thinking that i get half the proceeds of the sale? Even though i did'nt live there and never contributed?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kittyfisher. 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.
i do understand that it would have cost the ex a couple of grand in fees to remove kitty from the deeds 5 yrs ago. he would also of had to qualify to take over the mortgage. Kitty, you cannot take 50% of the property if you hold your own hand up and say 'i put nothing in'. i reckon you are asking the question morally as you have a niggling feeling that is wrong to go for 50% when you put nothing in, but are tempted by the pound signs
You cannot take the word of your solicitor. Their fees rule out all their moral standing. In the eyes of the law yes you are entitled to something, but a court will probably side with your ex and think him a fool. He will still have to pay you something and it will all be swallowed with solicitors costs. I would say to your ex 'you pay my fees for removal of the deeds and a contract to say you will pay me 10% of the equity'. You will then just get 10% cash in your pocket for nothing.
morally right !
You cannot take the word of your solicitor. Their fees rule out all their moral standing. In the eyes of the law yes you are entitled to something, but a court will probably side with your ex and think him a fool. He will still have to pay you something and it will all be swallowed with solicitors costs. I would say to your ex 'you pay my fees for removal of the deeds and a contract to say you will pay me 10% of the equity'. You will then just get 10% cash in your pocket for nothing.
morally right !
Well there is also the question on whether they are registered as 'tenants in common' or 'joint tenants'.
If they are tenants in common there should have been a form indicating what percentage each is entitled to upon sale of property. Joint tenants are usually entitled to 50/50 however the ex can, and will, argue that not a single penny has been paid by her into the mortgage account.
As the mortgage account is in both names, the ex can also argue that she owes him money...
If they are tenants in common there should have been a form indicating what percentage each is entitled to upon sale of property. Joint tenants are usually entitled to 50/50 however the ex can, and will, argue that not a single penny has been paid by her into the mortgage account.
As the mortgage account is in both names, the ex can also argue that she owes him money...
There is nothing to go to court for.
The mortgage is a red herring. The ex lived there for five years and had complete occupation of the property. He may have moved someone else in. Kitty is owed rent for the ex's occupation of her half of the property, has paid nothing, so his expenditure on the mortgage and upkeep equals what is owed to Kitty. Nothing else to say about that.
How Kitty came into legal part ownership of the property is equally nothing to do with it. Nothing whatsoever. The fact is that she is a part owner and is entitled to her full share on its disposal. There is nothing morally (or legally) wrong with that, and all of the matters raised above are not worth the pixels they are written with.
The mortgage is a red herring. The ex lived there for five years and had complete occupation of the property. He may have moved someone else in. Kitty is owed rent for the ex's occupation of her half of the property, has paid nothing, so his expenditure on the mortgage and upkeep equals what is owed to Kitty. Nothing else to say about that.
How Kitty came into legal part ownership of the property is equally nothing to do with it. Nothing whatsoever. The fact is that she is a part owner and is entitled to her full share on its disposal. There is nothing morally (or legally) wrong with that, and all of the matters raised above are not worth the pixels they are written with.
Oh yes they are ~ the names on the mortgage are both 'jointly and severably liable' for payments on the loan.
She hasn't paid anything, he has. Therefore she owes him money. She may not go to court, but he can and probably will. I know all this because my husband has been through the same thing.
The mortgage is far from a red herring. While there is still a loan amount payable, it is incredibly important in this case.
She hasn't paid anything, he has. Therefore she owes him money. She may not go to court, but he can and probably will. I know all this because my husband has been through the same thing.
The mortgage is far from a red herring. While there is still a loan amount payable, it is incredibly important in this case.
Oh if only, MT..if only.
Let the bloke take her to court, and she can find out. If she gets a share then great, obviously she can live with that decision....and her ex will have learned a hard lesson.
My guess is that she will need help with contesting any action he takes which will undoubtedly cost her money. It may be worth it, may not. She will have to see!
Kitty didn't answer my question about whether or not they were joint tenants or tenants in common. In any case, her ex will have a good argument ~ I have known women in similar cases who actually paid into the home and received nothing from a sale..on the contrary they had to pay their partners a debt.
Let the bloke take her to court, and she can find out. If she gets a share then great, obviously she can live with that decision....and her ex will have learned a hard lesson.
My guess is that she will need help with contesting any action he takes which will undoubtedly cost her money. It may be worth it, may not. She will have to see!
Kitty didn't answer my question about whether or not they were joint tenants or tenants in common. In any case, her ex will have a good argument ~ I have known women in similar cases who actually paid into the home and received nothing from a sale..on the contrary they had to pay their partners a debt.
Sorry Pippa but
(1) there is nothing to go to court about over ownership. Whether a 50/50 joint tenant or some other proportion TIC Kitty is entitled to her share. There can be no dispute, there is nothing to argue about she is a legal part owner, and has been for five years. It is indisputable. The ex cannot commence any legal action over ownership because there is nothing to contest.
(2) there is nothing that will get into court over the mortgage. Kitty had a contract to pay the lender, but there is no contract between Kitty and her ex, so she cannot owe the ex anything in connection with the mortgage. When the ex took total possession of the property and possibly moved in another, in lieu of the rent he owed Kitty for her half of the property he took over Kitty's liability to the lender plus the property upkeep. So all square. Nothing in connection with the mortgage or Kitty's rent will ever reach trial.
(3) It is quite possible for women to pay into the home and receive nothing out of the sale. But the circumstances would be totally different from the matter in hand. In the matter in hand Kitty will get her share, there will be no trial as there is nothing to contest, and Kitty's mortgage liability paid by the ex and the rent owed to Kitty by the ex cancel each other out.
(1) there is nothing to go to court about over ownership. Whether a 50/50 joint tenant or some other proportion TIC Kitty is entitled to her share. There can be no dispute, there is nothing to argue about she is a legal part owner, and has been for five years. It is indisputable. The ex cannot commence any legal action over ownership because there is nothing to contest.
(2) there is nothing that will get into court over the mortgage. Kitty had a contract to pay the lender, but there is no contract between Kitty and her ex, so she cannot owe the ex anything in connection with the mortgage. When the ex took total possession of the property and possibly moved in another, in lieu of the rent he owed Kitty for her half of the property he took over Kitty's liability to the lender plus the property upkeep. So all square. Nothing in connection with the mortgage or Kitty's rent will ever reach trial.
(3) It is quite possible for women to pay into the home and receive nothing out of the sale. But the circumstances would be totally different from the matter in hand. In the matter in hand Kitty will get her share, there will be no trial as there is nothing to contest, and Kitty's mortgage liability paid by the ex and the rent owed to Kitty by the ex cancel each other out.
hmmmm..well if I were him I wuld be fighting it all the way. And she will have to get legal help ~ she already has a solicitor doesn't she?
I can't see anything in the posts about him moving anyone else in..if I missed that I apologise, but in any case if he did then his co-habitee could claim monies too..leaving the pot ever decreasing.
Cohabitation is a very dodgy thing, unless a cohabitation agreement is written up. This is advised even if there are two names on the mortgage.
Please let us know how you get on, Kitty.
I can't see anything in the posts about him moving anyone else in..if I missed that I apologise, but in any case if he did then his co-habitee could claim monies too..leaving the pot ever decreasing.
Cohabitation is a very dodgy thing, unless a cohabitation agreement is written up. This is advised even if there are two names on the mortgage.
Please let us know how you get on, Kitty.
This happend to me after 3 years of paying the mortgage on my own after the ex girlfriend cheated and left me, when i came to move on and get a new mortgage half of the profit went to her, i paid everything as she was not working the mortgage was in both names but with only my salary. Its not fair for you to take anything from the sale but its a question of can you live with yourself after taking the money you had no right to take. Please do not take the money its not fair.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Body & Soul4 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
News11 mins ago
