Interpretation of court order - your opinions please...

[supernova9]

In brief. I successfully forced the sale of the property I own with my ex who didn't want to sell it. This order was made over a year ago.

Due to my ex's complete refusal to cooperate or comply with he Court Orders and continued obstruction of the court ordered sale we had to go back to Court a few times. My ex was evicted from the property and I was given sole conduct of the sale. The Judge ordered my ex to pay all my legal fees and also that all charges, arrears, fees and interest be paid from my ex's share of profit.

I marketed the property and accepted an offer. It has been sold and I need to meet with the Solicitors who will distribute the money to each of us to run through figures.

The Court order states that from my ex's share of the profit from sale (50/50) there will be paid to me:

"The sum equivalent to the amount of any mortgage arrears and any charges and interest accrued thereon between 1 February 2014 and the date of sale of the property."

The bit about arrears and charges is easy to understand and get a figure for, no questions there.

But what about "interest"?

Would you interpret the above sentence from the Court Order to mean that a sum equivalent to all of the interest that has been added to the mortgage balance each month (each month it's around £800) since 1 February 2014 should be paid from my ex's share to me.

Is that right? Or do you interpret it to mean something else?

I'd interpret it to be addition interest accrued due to any arrears.

You could go back to the court to ask for clarification.

Thank you for your post.

I am waiting to see the conveyancing Solicitor next week. I am relying on this money come soon and I know I wouldn't get another hearing for months as the Court dealing with it are so very busy.

The Judge at the time said this above was being Ordered to give my ex a very big incentive to start complying with the order for sale as the longer the delay the more my ex would lose from their share of the equity.

I guess it is down to the Solicitor's interpretation of the wording of the Order as he is the one to distribute the money?

Can't you get the mortgage lender to give you a figure for that?

Yes, once we have the completion dte the solicitor has said he will contact the mortgage lender and get a breakdown of all the figures to allow him to correctly distribute the money.

My issue is the paragraph I have quoted above seems a lite ambiguous. The Judge intended for my ex to have a big incentive to comply with the order for sale hence making the order so that my ex loses more of their share of equity the longer they delay the sale.

My ex thinks the paragraph I have quoted above means interest on the arrears only. I believe it means the interest that has been added onto the mortgage each month since the date stated. This is about £10k- so makes a big difference to each of us.

Mir appears that the wording of that paragraph is a little ambiguous. It doesn't say interest on arrears it says arrears and interest. This order was made over. A year ago and I have always believed the judge'a intentions was to have my ex reimburse me all interest added to the mortgage since it was supposed to be sold as my ex has obstructed and delayed the sale.

Well, the arrears constitute all that he should have paid but hasn't. That will include interest as well. Anything else is double counting, surely?

Is it an interest only mortgage?

I would think interest is included because that is the date when the property should have been sold had he not been obstructive in the first place?

"The sum equivalent to the amount of any mortgage arrears and any charges and interest accrued thereon between 1 February 2014 and the date of sale of the property."

It says interest accrued on the mortgage arrears in my view. Accrued thereon - so accrued on the arrears.

So if the mortgage arrears were £15k capital and interest (assuming repayment mortgage) that is the "mortgage arrears". then in addition he pays any charges - as you say lender will tell you that. Then the lender probably charges interest on those arrears and as your lawyer says the lender will tell you what those are.

it definitely DOES say interest on arrears in my view. That is what the word "thereon" means.

Thanks everyone.

Lotus- So "thereon" means "caused by/due to the above mentioned" is that correct? So it means interest caused by the arrears?

To give more information. The mortgage is interest only. The Judge ordered my ex to be responsible for all these costs and charges as my ex stated they would not comply with the order and the Judge said this would give my ex a very big incentive to comply and get it sold as soon as possible. At the time ex was living there and refused to allow estate agents access and wasn't paying the mortgage reliably leaving me to make up the shortfall or face repossession and the damage it would do to my financial security/credit rating. My understanding was the Judge ordered all interest from that date onwards to be paid back to me out of the equity just in case ex starting refusing to pay the mortgage at all and left me to pay it each month whilst my ex was living there and refusing to pay. The Judge explained they couldn't order ex to pay the mortgage each month as we were both named on it and both jointly and severally liable so this was the next best thing.

Perhaps I was wrong as Lotus States the "thereon" indictes it means interest on the arrears only :(

I agree with the interpretation of Lotus purely from a grammatical point of view (not legally qualified). Hopefully your solicitor will be able to advise appropriately.

Thanks Zampa. Not great for me but I appreciate it. I'll be getting far less from the sale than I expected if that's the case (as it appears it is).

He would still have to pay 50% of the usual interest (eg monthly payment) plus 100% of the arrears, the interest on the arrears and the charges.

Your solicitor should be able to sort this out for you.

Zampa, all most legal interpretation is is good grammar actually.

I write and use thereon as a lawyer all the time.

The sum equivalent to the amount of any mortgage arrears and ....... interest accrued [ on the amount of any mortgage arrears] "....

That is how I would strip it out.

Get as many views as possible.

Just give me an example to help understand what in addition you are claiming.

So say on this interest only mortgage £15k of interest is due up to the sale date. What other interest is there? Is the lender charging interest on the interest? So if say £15k interest is due to sale date and then £10k more of interest on the arrears of interest then you claim that too? It doesn't seem unfair that you get whatever costs he has caused you.

Interest on the arrears of interest might be claimable?
So any arrears as it's interest onl mortgage are arrears of interest? Is that right? In that case the only interest "thereon" on what was owing(what was owing being 100% interest due under the mortgage) is interest on the interest .

Just let us know whether your interpretation is as in my example - interest on the arrears of interest (as the only arrears were interest anyway).

OK. First thing to try and understand is whether the order intends he pay to you a sum equivalent to all mortgage arrears, or just those accrued after 1.2.14. The order is ambiguous. Were there any arrears as at that date?

If not, it's quite straight forward. Get a mortgage balance as at 1.2.14, and any excess payable on redemption now will have to be paid by him to you out of his 50%. If there were arrears as at 1.2.14 you'll have to speak to your solicitor and get a copy of their note of the judgment to see what the judge actually intended.

There were no arrears at the time of the order being made in Feb 2014. There is currently £3000 of arrears which has been accrued since Feb 2014. My online mortgage account shows the arrears, interest on the arrears and charges for being in arrears, so that's all straightforward.

I was hoping that the Order (as I thought from what the Judge said at the time) meant that all interest that had been added to the mortgage account since Feb 2014 (it's about £800 per month) should be paid to me. I thought this was the case due to my ex refusing to comply with the order for sale (for over a year until I forced eviction and went back to court to obtain sole conduct of the same) which resulted in me being forced to contribute towards months mortgage payments as my ex regularly underpaid or missed them. This would be a large amount £800 interest per month x 14 months = £11,200.

It seems I was wrong and I will only be reimbursed the arrears and interest in arrears. My ex has ignored the court order, dragged it out over a year, had me paying the mortgage whilst living there and me also having to pay my own rent for me and the children and still walks away with almost 50%.

If I can be cheeky- can I ask anyone here to look at my other thread on this forum "ex refuses to pay maintenance/schedule 1" as to my chances of being somehow able to make claim to some of ex's 50% as provision for the children given they are with me most of the time and I get absolutely no maintenance at all.

I understand now. No, I don't think it means that.
If often feels unfair that the parent staying in the home who pays 100% of the mortgage cannot claim back what they paid but your ex presumably paid his rent and you didn't pay that for him so I just don't think the order can be interpreted to that effect. I can see why it's annoying for you as had he rushed all this you would have sold sooner and got your half out sooner, although the rent you might have paid might be higher than the mortgage interest you ended up paying I suppose.

Oh no Lotus, my ex has been living in the property, not me! I've been renting elsewhere and paying some of the mortgage too- hence me wanting it sold ages ago!