Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Flip

Original poster

Is dh entitled to anything from the sale of his ex's house?

14 replies

Moomin · 25/03/2007 20:42

10 years ago dh and his ex bought a house together. They got applied for the mortgage together, his name is on the deeds and he out £2K towards the deposit.

Unfortunately for her (but fortunately for me as it happens!) they split up soon after and she moved into the house on her own. After they'd been apart for a while and still fairly amicable she said she'd try to get his money back to him at some point. But it never happened and life went on...

MIL and SIL still see the ex and her mum from time to time and it was mentioned that she is thinking of selling the house. She will make SHEDLOADS of profit (well over £200K) and dh joked to me that he wondered of he'd get his £2K back now. It was only then he told me that his name is still on the deeds!

Anyone know what he's entitled to? Is there any way she'd ahve been able to take his name off the deeds? Would she have to cinsult him to sell the house? He really isn't interested in anything above the £2K he put in as he obviously has never made any contribution to the mortgage. We're skint at the mo so the money would be really useful. Anyone know?

OP posts:

PanicPants · 25/03/2007 20:49

Are they divorced? And has he contributed to the mortgage in the last 10 years?

If divorced then probably not. When I was divorced the papers/judge clearly stated that we were not financially beholden to each other, or be in a position to claim anything from each other.

And if he hasn't contributed anything since they split then she would have a good case against him.

But if his names on the deeds? I'm not sure. You'd have o get a solicitor involved

Freckle · 25/03/2007 20:49

Strictly speaking, if they bought the house as joint tenants with no deed stipulating that one had a greater share than the other, he is entitled to 50% of the equity as he is effectively a 50% owner of the property.

However, if he has never contributed towards the mortgage it would not be ethically right to claim that 50%, but he could claim his original deposit plus its equivalent value today including interest. Strictly speaking, he is legally entitled to 50% of the equity, unless his ex goes to court about it. And yes, he would need to sign the contract and transfer deeds.

katzg · 25/03/2007 20:50

She would have to have got him to sign to take his name off the deeds, i guess the mortage isn;t in joint names anymore.

PanicPants · 25/03/2007 20:50

Oh and just read he never lived there either - so again, not good I'm afraid!

Freckle · 25/03/2007 20:51

What's not good, PP? The fact that he paid a contribution to a property but didn't live there means he can't claim anything from the proceeds of sale?? Not true.

katzg · 25/03/2007 20:55

was going to add taht when we bought our first house my MIL was a joint applcaint which meant that even if she didn't contribute she was entitled to a 3rd of teh house at the point of sale, so we had a deed of trust draw up saying she had no claim unless she actually paid in.

PanicPants · 25/03/2007 20:57

True - but it would give him a better claim. I.e., he would have contributed towards the upkeep/maintenance etc

It would depend on the judge's views.

Original poster

Moomin · 25/03/2007 20:58

Yeah he never actually lived there but as far as he knows he has never signed anything to take his name off the deeds. No they weren't married and no he hasn't contributed to the mortgage, so we know that ethically it wouldn't be right to claim 50% and he never would. But he may as well try to get his money back if he can.

OP posts:

Freckle · 25/03/2007 21:02

But he shouldn't just accept his original £2000. He should accept today's value of £2000 or its equivalent value dependant on the current value of the property.

I.e. if the house cost £10,000 and he contributed £2000, then his interest is 20%. So if he originally contributed £2000 to a property valued at £100000, then his interest in the property is 2%. That 2% should be applied to the current value of the property.

PanicPants · 25/03/2007 21:04

Can he speak to her amicably about it, and try to avoid solicitors? Otherwise your share may be eaten up in fees.

mumblechum · 26/03/2007 12:40

I'd echo what Freckle says. In the meantime, he should register a restriction on dealings at the land registry. He really needs to get himself a solicitor pronto.

wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe · 26/03/2007 12:51

if his name is on the deeds, she can't sell it anyway without his signature can she?

Twiglett · 26/03/2007 12:57

I'd be extremely surprised if the divorce didn't stipulate what would happen with regards to joint assets (or is she ex-girlfriend)

I'd consult a solicitor

Original poster

Moomin · 26/03/2007 14:26

they were never married. Things are amicable between the families but he and she haven't spoken really since me and him got together. I wasn't the cause of the split but MIL says she thinks the ex still holds a torch for him and is a bit bitter that he's ettled down with 2 kids and she's had a bit of a time of it. Dh says it's probably 'safer' to get MIL to keep her ear to the ground and see when the ex is thinking of selling it. Looks a bit money-grabbing if he only gets in touch about the sale of the house. I don't think solicitors will be needed (by dh I mean) when she comes to sell it.

OP posts:

Flip