Page 2 | Divorce 1987 now property problem

lateSeptember1964 · 2023-02-16T07:44:20+00:00

Out of the blue I have been contacted by a solicitor to say I am still on the freehold from a house that I had previously purchased. The house formed part of a divorce settlement in 1987 which I had to give my ex. I signed everything I was given by the solicitor and got on with life I purchased the house prior to marriage with my ex and then when still single purchased the freehold separately at a later date. The consent order at the time of divorce said I had to sign over the house. I did exactly that. The court documents are all hand written and don’t specify very much. Letters at the time confirmed I had complied with everything. Now I am being hassled to sign over the freehold and in all honesty I’m just wondering do I have to after all this time. Any advice appreciated

prh47bridge · 16/02/2023 20:05

Mumsanetta · 16/02/2023 19:21

Not really the way these things work. If someone raises an issue 36 years after the fact it is not unreasonable to request that your legal costs for retrieving deeds and the file are covered. Any negligence will have been on the ex’s solicitor’s part as they failed to act in their client’s best interest by ensuring that the freehold was transferred to the ex.

OP has now confirmed that the house is up for sale - the OP’s ex won’t want to delay obtaining a resolution and potentially losing buyers by arguing about a few thousand in legal costs.

@lateSeptember1964 I would contact the solicitors who acted for you in 1987 as they will need to retrieve the file and the deeds.

Show quote history

The basics...

OP agreed to hand over the house to her ex, so that is what the consent order said she must do.

It appears OP has failed to comply with the consent order.

And yet you really think that somehow the courts would support a claim from her that her ex pay any legal fees she incurs due to her non-compliance? The fact that it has been a long time doesn't magically make him responsible for any costs caused by her non-compliance.

If OP's solicitor was at fault, she may have a claim against them if they still exist. She doesn't have a claim against her ex's solicitor as they weren't contracted to her. Her ex may have a claim against his solicitor, but that doesn't help OP. Her non-compliance certainly doesn't give her a claim against her ex.

So yes, that really is how these things work. It may be that her ex will be willing to help with legal fees to move things along. But OP is not in a position to insist. If she tries, her ex will likely be advised to take enforcement action against her, which would result in her having to pay his legal fees as well as her own.

eurochick · 16/02/2023 20:06

What is the actual wording on the order.

Original poster

lateSeptember1964 · 16/02/2023 20:31

Journeyofinsanity I received two thousand pounds. I used it to pay my solicitors fees. I am now in receipt of the court papers and can see the court order now says that my ex had to pay my legal costs. I never knew that.

OP posts:

prh47bridge · 16/02/2023 20:52

Unfortunately, it is too late to enforce the costs order. The property matter is still enforceable, but the costs are not.

Mumsanetta · 16/02/2023 20:54

And yet you really think that somehow the courts would support a claim from her that her ex pay any legal fees she incurs due to her non-compliance? The fact that it has been a long time doesn't magically make him responsible for any costs caused by her non-compliance.

Don’t really want to get into an argument with you but this isn’t what I said. I am talking about how these things work, not what a court says. I really should know as I am a solicitor. It would be far more cost and time effective for OP’s ex to pay her fees for dealing with the issue than to seek to enforce the court order through the courts. This is particularly as he wants to sell the property. Turns out he failed to pay her legal fees in the first place anyway.

DelphiniumBlue · 16/02/2023 21:36

Mumsanetta · 16/02/2023 20:54

And yet you really think that somehow the courts would support a claim from her that her ex pay any legal fees she incurs due to her non-compliance? The fact that it has been a long time doesn't magically make him responsible for any costs caused by her non-compliance.

Don’t really want to get into an argument with you but this isn’t what I said. I am talking about how these things work, not what a court says. I really should know as I am a solicitor. It would be far more cost and time effective for OP’s ex to pay her fees for dealing with the issue than to seek to enforce the court order through the courts. This is particularly as he wants to sell the property. Turns out he failed to pay her legal fees in the first place anyway.

The reality is that ex will want this dealt with as quickly as possible with minimum fuss. So if he pays any legal fees that OP incurs that will help progress things quickly. And the court order says that he is responsible for OPs legal costs- even if that is no longer enforceable, again, it's in his interests to do what is necessary to progress his sale. Hopefully he will take the pragmatic view. He's the one who stands to make a profit on all this, and who failed to pay the original fees that he was ordered to pay. If he has any sense at all he will make it easy for the OP to do what he wants so that his sale can go ahead without delay.

prh47bridge · 16/02/2023 21:55

Mumsanetta · 16/02/2023 20:54

And yet you really think that somehow the courts would support a claim from her that her ex pay any legal fees she incurs due to her non-compliance? The fact that it has been a long time doesn't magically make him responsible for any costs caused by her non-compliance.

Don’t really want to get into an argument with you but this isn’t what I said. I am talking about how these things work, not what a court says. I really should know as I am a solicitor. It would be far more cost and time effective for OP’s ex to pay her fees for dealing with the issue than to seek to enforce the court order through the courts. This is particularly as he wants to sell the property. Turns out he failed to pay her legal fees in the first place anyway.

My bad. I thought you were saying the courts would make her pay. I agree that, if he wants it sorted quickly, her ex may be persuaded to help with OP's legal fees.

burnoutbabe · 16/02/2023 23:11

eurochick · 16/02/2023 20:06

What is the actual wording on the order.

Yes this seems crucial. The house could mean the leasehold property or the whole leasehold and freehold.

But it seems like the ex didn't know the op owned the freehold, therefore couldn't have asked for it in the divorce?

So I'd probably ask him to buy it of me for £5k or so. Whatever is low enough to not be worth him taking legal action (which assumes the court order wasn't 100% clear it was to include both freehold and leasehold bits).

Of course he can sell the leasehold without the freehold -have you been doing all your freeholder things? Accounts or insurance etc?

prh47bridge · 17/02/2023 08:29

burnoutbabe · 16/02/2023 23:11

Yes this seems crucial. The house could mean the leasehold property or the whole leasehold and freehold.

But it seems like the ex didn't know the op owned the freehold, therefore couldn't have asked for it in the divorce?

So I'd probably ask him to buy it of me for £5k or so. Whatever is low enough to not be worth him taking legal action (which assumes the court order wasn't 100% clear it was to include both freehold and leasehold bits).

Of course he can sell the leasehold without the freehold -have you been doing all your freeholder things? Accounts or insurance etc?

Show quote history

The only way ex didn't know OP owned the freehold would be if it was never mentioned during the marriage and OP failed to make a full declaration of her assets during the divorce.

As Collaborate said upthread, if the order said that OP had to transfer her interest in the home, it meant her entire interest. It doesn't need to specify leasehold or freehold. Even if her ex was unaware that she owned the freehold, she would still be required to transfer it. The only way the order would be limited to her leasehold interest would be if it specifically said so.

Collaborate · 17/02/2023 08:55

lateSeptember1964 · 16/02/2023 18:17

Thank you all for your comments. To confirm it’s a hand written court order not a consent order as I originally said. There is no deed numbers and refers to the matrimonial home only. I was so young and when presented with the documents to sign to transfer the house I just signed and thought it was done. I think it’s become apparent as I can see the house is up for sale on Rightmove

There is a subsequent letter where his solicitor writes to who they believe to be the leaseholder of the property to inform them of the transfer of my part of the property from me to him. They write back and say we don’t own the lease we sold it. Then another correspondence where his solicitor writes to my ex to say the lease had been sold but no further questions or confirmation to whom. It’s all a mess but I will see a solicitor and just raise some questions on the back of this thread
I’ve since owned about 8 houses and this has never come up. It’s another thing on my to do list.

This post is sewing further confusion.

A handwritten order is in my view insufficient evidence of the actual order unless it bears the court seal. If it doesn't then OP should not sign aything without being advised by a solicitor.

A leaseholder is someone who owns the benefit of a lease. The freeholder owns the freehold title. I think OP must mean freeholder, as you would normally give notice to the freeholder of any change in the title. I can see no indication in any of OP's posts that would suggest that OP ever owned both leasehold and freehold titles but this seems to have beome one of the focal points of this thread.

I agree with those posters who are encouraging OP to seek a contribution to her legal costs. I would be asking for £500 initially and would make it clear that I do not want to be out of pocket.

As far as enforcement of the costs order is concerned it depends on what method of enforcement OP chooses. Anything that starts a new action is prohibited by the Limitation Act but anything that takes place within the existing proceedings is executory only - just as the transfer (if ordered and if it hasn't taken place) would be executory and also not subject to the Limitation Act). The order will have to have stated the amount owed - if it was an order for costs subject to detailed assessment litigants now have 3 months to start the detailed assessment process so you can forget about applying for permission 35 years later.

Greentree1 · 17/02/2023 09:08

Are you saying your ex no longer holds the leasehold and a third party is now asking you to hand over the freehold? If that is the case I wouldn't do it. If the ex is now trying to sell the house and wants to include the freehold I probably would hand it over as that was the intent of the original order and not including the freehold was an over sight.