breach of legal document resulting in theft/fraud - how far could the guilty party fight?

[loversandstrangers]

I'd really appreciate if someone could offer any insight here. I'll try to keep it simple. Let's say two people - Jack and Jill - have a very simple and clear signed agreement saying 'if we sell this asset, we must both agree on the sale price in advance and then split the proceeds.'

Jack then goes behind Jill's back, sells the asset at a price only he approved, then pockets the cash.

Jill's lawyers (from a tier one firm) send a letter saying Jack has breached the contract. Jack's lawyer (a barely solvent one man band) send a letter essentially saying 'fuck you, we will fight you.'

The breach of a very clear agreement has been described as an 'open and shut' by every single qualified lawyer who has looked at this. But my question is, how long could Jack come back with nonsense and try to fight? If he is clearly in the wrong, and could end up going to prison if he doesn't co-operate, surely any lawyer (even a shit one) will advise against it?

If Jack is prepared to fight and has enough assets to pay his costs and those of the other side if he loses then he can battle on to the court of appeal if he likes drama! His lawyers should advise him that he's unlikely to get anywhere. But they can still accept his instructions if he wants a fight. They might not though if they think he can't pay. And if they give him wrong advice and tell him he's going to win that's between him and them.

Maybe he thinks fighting it will make her give up

Thank you. Jack is known to be irrational and does indeed love drama. Jill has more money than Jack, and far more powerful lawyers, but doesn't want a fight - she just wants what she is legally entitled to. Surely if Jack has committed a crime (ie stolen money that didn't belong to him) and it's a very clear cut case, no lawyer under the sun will advise that he fights that?

Might be worth noting that Jack is also trying to secure a mortgage with the stolen cash - my understanding is that you cannot get a mortgage if you are being sued?

Sounds like he wants to blow the lot on solicitors fees.

If he has committed fraud you should involve the police.

Legal cases are as much about resources as anything else. It may be “open and shut” but you need to finance a civil case for breach of contract (if police aren’t involved and probably in event of criminal case too, unless he offers money back in hope of it providing mitigation). And you need the emotional strength to see it through.

Costs rack up quickly and if he doesn’t have the money (cos he’s spent it all on lawyers), then he doesn’t have the money and you’ll achieve nothing.

How much money are you expecting from him?

@notangelinajolie - Jack might want to blow money on solicitor's fees, but Jill certainly doesn't.

I suppose my question is, when something actually ceases being a dispute and actually becomes 'you've acted illegally and could go to prison', surely no-one would just keep on fighting with that? No lawyer would advise a client to keep going if he's OBVIOUSLY going to lose?

@PegasusReturns - a significant amount. Don't want to be specific but think upwards of 100k. He has literally breached a written agreement that the proceeds of the sale will be split, and pocketed the money.

IANAL but surely there is a difference between a civil and a criminal case. If this really is a criminal case why isn't Jill reporting this to the Police then sitting back while they deal with it?

@lgmum - well, I suppose in the first instance breaking the contract is civil and would involve lawyers, but taking the money is criminal?

Im not a lawyer but i would imagine that the only way this would be a criminal case is if he forged her documents and signature to sell?

Does the house belong partly to Jill. If not then its all civil imagine

I'm not convinced that this is a criminal case; from what you've said - has your solicitor said that it is?

@TakeYourFinalPosition @femfemlicious

• Both parties signed an agreement stating - 'If this asset is to be sold, the sale price must be agreed between Jack and Jill in advance of sale, and when it is sold, the payment for it must be split 50:50'.

Jack then sold WITHOUT Jill's consent, and then took all the money. It is literally that simple - hence why lawyers called it an open and shut case.

Whose name is on the deeds. If its jacks name only then he is able to sell it. If There is nothing registered at land registry to stop him selling it. All you can now do is sue him for breaching the contract and a judge decides. Its not criminal

None of what you've said makes in your last comment makes it evident it should be a criminal matter. Breach of contract is a civil matter. Just because you act in defiance of a legal document (contract) doesn't make it equivalent to something like contempt of court (breach of court judgement) which can result in criminal consequences for you.

There's no criminal issue here, unless for example the land was jointly owned and he forged her signature,

This is a breach of contract claim. If it is that clear cut she should fight and should pursue him for costs, but note that the costs could get pretty high. Does she have house insurance that covers legal costs?

@notangelinajolie

Sounds like he wants to blow the lot on solicitors fees.

No he wants her to blow HER money on legal fees. This sounds very much like my ex-husband in my divorce. There will be little to no comeback. Sorry. My advice - get to that final court hearing asap swerving mediation, do as much as possible yourself (thereby avoiding incompetent solicitor costs), and be very clear with the documentation of this. You will also be unlikely to recover any of the costs of chasing your share. Again sorry. One of the utter failures of family court.

Basically what you're asking is will an unreasonable, irrational and dishonest person act honestly, reasonably and rationally if they get a solicitors letter.

And the answer is no, probably not.

Was Jack coerced in the first place to sign the document?

Sounds like it is a civil matter unless he has forged her signature to take receipt of the proceeds. Therefore Jill needs to sue Jack. If she doesn't issue proceedings she won't get a judgement which she can then enforce.

Being sued by someone does not prevent Jack getting a mortgage.

How watertight is the initial agreement. I'm assuming Jack will dispute its validity.

Okay - apologies for confusing people but trying not to be outing. The ASSET that was sold was not a property, but something else that was worth a significant sum of money. Points about names on the deeds etc or forging signatures aren't the issue here.

The point is that Jack sold the asset without Jill's consent, contrary to the legal terms of their agreement, and then took all the proceeds, also contrary to the legal terms of their agreement.

@madeforthis - watertight. Hence my question, how far could or would someone fight?

@Precipice has said what I was going to.

It might be an open and shut case, but it could still be a civil one.

@IncompleteSenten - so it seems But I guess, if someone doesn't have a hope in hell of winning, to what extent would they keep fighting? If it's absolutely obvious that a person will lose should something go as far as court, would any lawyer (even a crap one) advise a client to keep disputing?