Divorce and lump sum from house

[puzzled198]

My soon to be ex husband is looking to buy me out of our house (jointly owned). He has been to see a solicitor and they've advised that the value of equity in the house should be calculated subtracting theoretical costs of selling the house (estate agent fees, solicitor costs,etc.). I would then get 50% of that value. He's also mentioned that he wants a chartered surveyor to value the house, rather than an estate agent as they would inflate the price. He also has stated that he wants me to pay half the cost of the surveyor.

It seems very unfair that he's charging me the costs of selling he house when we are not selling. Do I have a counter claim for the costs I'll incur for buying a new property, as I'll no longer being living in the marital home?

I will now look into getting my own legal advice, but wanted to see if anyone could advise here too.

I've also had poor experience with surveyors massively under valuing a property, and the estate agents being spot on! So I'm nervous about the surveyor option, and don't want to have to pay for it either!

This is all made worse by the fact that he cheated on me and as a consequence ended the marriage. I know that this makes no difference in legal terms, but it's still very annoying.

He is not charging you the costs of selling the house. The equity in the house is its value less the outstanding mortgage and the estimated costs of selling it. After all, if the house was sold that is how much money would be left. If this is being split between you equally you are, in effect, losing half the costs of selling the house. Your ex will have to pay the full costs of selling when he eventually sells the property.

You do not have any claim for the costs you will incur in buying a new property. It doesn't work like that. The court will only be interested in ensuring a fair division of the assets.

I don’t think he can charge you half of the imaginary costs that he isn’t actually paying! Get your own solicitor.

Form E, looking at the value of the house, specifies that the notional costs of sale must be deducted. It correctly states that the total equity in the property is the market value less any outstanding mortgage, any mortgage penalties and the estimated costs of sale. So his solicitor is correct.

prh47bridge is correct. That's exactly how it was done in my case.

Three valuations from local estate agents were averaged along with their estimated costs of selling. However, I paid the cost of the valuations as not that much overall.

You are just about to be ripped off my dear. Insist on a joint sale.
I have experience of this. Post in legal? He's also a cheeky beggar for expecting you to stump up the cost of it.

Insist on a joint sale

How would a Joint sale reduce the cost of selling?

This is how it is, unfortunately. It’s one of my bugbears.

What about when you buy a replacement property, and have to pay legal fees and stamp duty? Why, if the property isn’t being sold, do you have to pay half of his future costs of sale? Will he be paying yours in advance? Certainly not. Personally I think the courts should only take costs of sale in to account if the property is actually being sold, but that would involve a change of culture.

@missedtheboat
To ensure its equitable.
There's a huge difference between a surveyor's valuation and a market valuation

Several ways of looking at this. When a house is sold the seller pays the cost of selling. Likewise the buyer pays the legal costs and stamp duty.

So when someone buys the other partners share does that not make them the buyer and the other the seller? If so then the one who is being bought out should bear all costs of sales as they are selling as opposed to buying?

Current logic seems to be that as the property is jointly owned then both should bear the costs of selling. After they are divorced they then become individually responsible for any future selling or buying costs?

For valuations I thought estate agents used surveyors when making a valuation?

Just because he says so, doesn't mean it has to happen. It's a negotiation - so you set out your stall and bargain.
Why not sell and see what the real market value is?
What valuable stuff (any motorbikes?) does he have that you can insist on getting half value for?
Are you going after his pension? If final salary, get that independently valued.
Get advice asap, and push back.

He has prepared mentally for this already. You are playing catchup. Do you currently want a divorce? Does he want one more (new woman?) If so, that's another card to play.

So by me agreeing for him to buy me out he gains financially. How is this fair?

So is the only benefit for me that it will possibly be sorted quicker (not having to wait for a buyer).

I'm tempted to put the house on the market so we both end up with the same amount of money from the house.

I'm very surprised that I have no claim over costs that I'll have to incur buying a new property.

I definitely want a divorce. So does he as he still seeing the woman he cheated with and wants to be able to bring her round to the house (they currently have to meet in hotels!).

We negotiated the sum I had to pay my ex (I was left with over £1m of mortgage debt and he got all my life savings and all our other assets as I earn more) and I kept the house. We just used estate agents and agreed between us a rough figure and then argued over the amount he would get and reached agreement but did not include costs of future sale for me (I was in the husband's position in the example on the thread). No one even suggested that to me as an issue but then we were just roughly toing and rosing anyway and it is so hard to come up with an agreed value of the house anyway.

You could say he should pay for a surveyor if he wants one but you will use two unpaid estate agents doing free valuations and you can also loo at local sold prices for other similar properties anyway which probably gives a good idea of value.

In our case my husband could not afford to buy me out but I could him which is why I stayed here. Could you afford to buy your husband out as much as he could buy you out? If not then I think he is allowed to keep the house.

I would see a solicitor as any savings you both have and other debts, you respective earnings and also what pensions you each have will all be part of the over all picture.

Unless you end up in court, it is all a negotiation. So aim high. He has more incentive if he has his mistress lined up to move in. Eurgh. Sorry you are going through this x

To Puzzled

If you go down the Court route the equity in the house will be calculated as described by prh47bridge. However, nothing to stop you agreeing between yourselves that equity should exclude selling costs.

If you decide to sell the house then you will incur the selling costs, but more significantly you may have to wait a long time for a sale. Agreeing a buy out figure will avoid a potentially long waiting time.

You have no claim for future buying costs as your Ex could argue that he is also entitled to claim from you any future selling costs and so it would go round and round.

Being cheated on is always upsetting for anyone, but try and remove that from your mind. As you pointed out in your first post it make no difference to financial settlements.

Good luck

Also in our case the difference betwen his highest estate agent valuation and mine was about £500k !!!! so the issue of £2k selling costs I suppose was just never going to figure very high as being an issue which is probably why no one raised it.