Matrimonial Home Rights

[girlynut]

A colleague has recently applied to register her matrimonial home rights with the Land Registry as she is commencing divorce proceedings and still living in the family home.

The office copy entry shows that the property is owned jointly by her husband and his brother. There is also the suggestion that his parents have a charge over the property as they are named in the charges register beneath the mortgage company.

Land Registry have rejected her application, because her husband does not hold the property as sole proprietor and also because there is a "joint proprietorship restriction" which may mean the property is held in trust for someone else (his parents).

Please can anybody confirm whether this means she does not have matrimonial home rights under s30 FLA 1996 or simply that the Land Registry cannot register it?

Should she consider registering a pending land action instead? Or applying for an occupation order? At this stage, no proceedings have been issued.

My colleague hopes to agree an amicable clean break financial agreement where he gives her a lump sum so she can buy a property of her own. He has offered £10k, she would like £30k. There are no children and the marriage was less than a year. So understandably she wants to keep things simple and avoid high legal costs.

Thanks.

She should certainly be entitled to a share of any equity after charges & brother paid out. Unfortunately if there were no children & it was a short marriage she may come away with nothing from the house unless she can show she has put money into it.

I said "may" - often with a short marriage you come away with what you bring to it

Thanks for that. I'll have a look at the Miller case. H is being a jerk and refusing to disclose his parents' interest or even the amount of any outstanding mortgage. So a strongly worded letter pointing out the purpose of Form E is on it's way.

But what about the home rights? Could he potentially sell the house from under her or tell her to leave? I think a settlement can be reached but she's obviously wants to protect her position in the meantime.

A marriage of less than a year is quite different from a 3 year marriage.

Are we talking about a woman who has given up a high earning career & a very well off husband - if not, best not get too carried away with the notion that there will be a 50/50 settlement!

The point I am making is that since the marriage was so short it is likely that the ownership & charges were not put there in order to stop her getting any money. Obviously without knowing what equity there is in the property it is hard to say what sum would be reasonable & it would be in her best interest to consult a solicitor but bear in mind that for a difference of £20,000 a lot of that would be eaten by legal fees if it ended up in court with barristers.