Selling House But ex being funny

[Quasar]

Hello,

I moved out of the house over a year ago and live with parents for time being

My ex stayed in house and paid me monies to pay mortgage, She lived in the house that was ours for 7 years.
She has no remarried and he lived in the house too along with her 3 kids ( none are mine )

I recently found out last week, she has upped and moved to a new house.

Only my name is on the mortgage.

I have mentioned to her that i am selling the house as i dont want it.

She has nastily replied - "how can i sell it when its not mine to sell ""

I really am not sure what she means by this, They way i understand it, as its only in my name, and she's remarried and moved on, there is nothing at all she can do, or needs to do .

Advice Please.

[des8]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

More importantly whose name is on Land Registry records?

[Kati]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

More importantly whose name is on Land Registry records?

[MENTION=42040]Quasar[/MENTION], you can search the Land Registry here - https://www.gov.uk/search-property-i...-land-registry

[dan_1207]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

It's possible that she's accrued an interest in the property, but only at equity and not in law, Briefly, she might be entitled to some of the money on sale, but the burden of proof is on your ex to show how this has come about. Provided you're the legal, sole proprietor, it's yours to do with what you wish.

Did you and your ex purchase the house together? If so, why is it only your name on the mortgage? Did she make a contribution to the purchase price?

[ostell]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

If she has remarried you must have been divorced (or just living together originally). The property should have been dealt with in the divorce proceedings. Was it? If it was what was the agreement?

[dan_1207]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

If she has remarried you must have been divorced (or just living together originally). The property should have been dealt with in the divorce proceedings. Was it? If it was what was the agreement?

Even so, given the OP states the property is in his sole name, any agreement made would amount to a Deed of Trust and thus, only deals with an interest in equity rather than law (i.e. share of sale price). Even if they were both joint owners, the fact that only he remains as proprietor means she's already sold her interest both in law and equity and has no claim over the property.

[Quasar]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

Hello All and thank you for replies.

I have purchased copies of the land register and proprietorship register and they are both in my sole name as is the mortgage documents.

[Quasar]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

oh we were never married - just lived together since 2007 to Oct 2013.

Only thing she paid for was TV Licence, Oil ( for heating ) and food and furniture, which shes taken it all anyway including a huge expensive sofa i paid for !!

[des8]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

You said in post 1 that you had lived in the house "that was ours" for seven years and.
My ex stayed in house and paid me monies to pay mortgage"

If she can prove that there was a common intention that she should have a beneficial interest she will have a claim against any value in the property.
If there were discussions she should have a share (and payment of mortgage monies would probably be sufficient to indicate this) or she can show that she paid a greater proportion of other bills, or by caring for your children allowed you to earn sufficient to pay all bills including the mortgage, a court could well infer a common intention to create a constructive trust.
Once such a trust has been established, the next step is to agree the respective proportions.

[dan_1207]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

I'll look into this tomorrow and let you know on further info regarding trusts.

[Quasar]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

Hiya,

the 3 kids are not mine and i am not in the eyes of the a legal guradian/parent - was just a stepdadI didnt have a repayment mortgage - it was interest only - she only paid me the last 6 or 7 months worth as i demanded her to as "rent"

there was no verbal or written agreement on the house - it was only recently she upped and cleared house out and left. I found out via a neighbour when he said a removals van is outside your house.

So from all the above - i dont think she has any claim.

No shes never paid more than me for the house and utilities - only the "oil" which was £400 a year

[des8]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

You may not think she has any claim, but it seems she thinks otherwise.
I'm afraid I can see this getting messy and you might eventually need professional assistance if you can't come to an agreement.
I'm not suggesting she has any valid claim, but taking a pragmatic view as solicitors cost mount quickly, it might be worthwhile seeing if you can come to a settlement/agreement before it gets that far.

[dan_1207]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

Okay, so there will be an argument of a constructive trust. There are two types:

Express Constructive Trust

There is evidence that the parties had actually expressed an intention to share the ownership of the property

Inferred Common Intention

Where the court will infer a common intention based on the conduct of the parties.

Now, if there is no evidentiary correspondence or proof that when you and your ex bought the property there was an express intention that both you and your ex would jointly own the property, then it's likely that an inferred common intention would be considered by the courts as a form of constructive trust.

As regards inferred common intention, where the court cannot find any evidence of express common intention, it may infer a common intention from the conduct of the parties.

The courts set the bar higher is these cases, such that the claimant (your ex) must show a greater degree of contribution in order to prove, to the satisfaction of the court, that a common intention should be inferred. For example, a mere contributions household expenses is insufficient to infer a common intention that your ex should have a beneficial interest in the property.

To put it into context, in Gissing v Gissing [1970] the House of Lords held that indirect financial contributions by a wife over 25 years did not create a beneficial interest in the house. In order to infer a common intention, the contributions had to be either directly towards the cost of acquiring the property or, at least, clearly referable to the acquisition. Mere contribution to household expenses in not enough.

This argument was developed by the House of Lords in Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] where it was considered doubtful that anything less than direct contributions to the purchase price, whether initially or by payment of mortgage instalments, would be insufficient. In this particular case, the contribution was towards the renovation and decoration of a house; this was considered an insufficient contribution for a common intention to be inferred.

Thus, in the absence of an express common intention, if a claimant has made a direct financial contribution to the purchase price, the requirement of detriment will automatically be satisfied. The claimant's contribution both infers a common intention and cars as the required detriment.

[dan_1207]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

As far as quantifying your ex's share is concerned (so, how much cash she gets) this is based on what is fair and reasonable as set out in Oxley v Hiscock [2004]. Also, any equitable share must be valued not at the date of contribution, but at the date the property is sold. Thus, if a house is purchased for £60,000 in 1985 and is now valued at £300,00 and the share is deemed to be 50 per cent, the beneficial interest will be worth £150,000, not £30,000.

I could go into more details as regards what the courts look at in accordance with Stack v Dowden [2007], but I think we're assuming that your ex will be seeking the court's help with a constructive trust, which might not happen anyway! If she does, we can advise on what to do next.

[des8]

Re: Selling House But ex being funny

Do bear in mind the costs that might be involved in any dispute.
You said you purchased the house 7 years ago, with an interest only mortgage.
You must look at the equity you have in the property.
Regard will be taken of the position when you started co habiting ie did you already own the property or did you buy it afterwards a family home?
Did your ex assist with the deposit?
If it was bought as a family house why was your (now ex) partner not included on Land Registry ? Was there a legal reason?
I'm not looking for the answers, but pointing out these are the sorts of questions that will arise
If the amount of equity is so small that your ex's claim is less than £10000 any court claim could be settled in small claims track.
In that case you might find the judgement seems perverse.
If the claim is outside the small claims parameters you will probably find the costs outweigh the benefits (unless the house value has increased enormously).

The arguments outlined by Dan in post 13&14 are very summarised and a lot more complicated.
Just read the differing judges opinions in Stack V Dowden http://www.publications.parliament.u...0425/stack.pdf
I'm not disagreeing with Dan, but just pointing out that if this matter goes to court it is very likely to prove expensive and so will be better sorted earlier.