Divorce

[FoxesDeb]

I know there was an old topic for this but I've searched and can't find it. 

 

So my other half is due in court in a couple of weeks for the finance part of his divorce, and has received an offer from her solicitor. 

 

Among plenty of other demands she wants to keep the house, but she is going to use 'best endeavours' to remove him from the mortgage, his name will be taken off the deeds and the house will become her own property. 

 

I've googled and see this is quite common, surely presumably she knows she will not be able to take him off the mortgage as she can't afford it on her own (she has said that her family will be helping her) 

 

Does anybody have any experience with this? If he's still on her mortgage will it affect us being able to get a mortgage together in the future? 

[Foxin_Mad]

Yes it will affect it. You are effectively liable for both mortgages in full. You would need to earn a lot or one would need to be buy to let to have any chance of getting 2.

 

I was in that exact same position and am about to be again, so sadly speak from experience. I am going to have to rent for a while now as my ex partner has children so cant really expect her to leave, but I cant come of the mortgage yet. To buy a smaller house with all the moving fees etc for her and the children wouldnt actually be cheaper either even if we sold up. In short it sucks!

[urban.spaceman]

Finally a positive thread.

[FoxesDeb]

1 hour ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Yes it will affect it. You are effectively liable for both mortgages in full. You would need to earn a lot or one would need to be buy to let to have any chance of getting 2.

 

I was in that exact same position and am about to be again, so sadly speak from experience. I am going to have to rent for a while now as my ex partner has children so cant really expect her to leave, but I cant come of the mortgage yet. To buy a smaller house with all the moving fees etc for her and the children wouldnt actually be cheaper either even if we sold up. In short it sucks!

Thanks, I'm sorry you're going through the same thing. It's pretty stressful even without everything else going on. 

 

So presumably the court won't be interested in it affecting his future buying power? 

 

She could move to a much cheaper property in the same area which would still be suitable for her and the children, will the court look at that if he presents it as an option? 

[Foxin_Mad]

49 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Thanks, I'm sorry you're going through the same thing. It's pretty stressful even without everything else going on. 

 

So presumably the court won't be interested in it affecting his future buying power? 

 

She could move to a much cheaper property in the same area which would still be suitable for her and the children, will the court look at that if he presents it as an option? 

Haha its ok I am a dab hand at it now! 2nd time lucky and all that! The rest of my life is dedicated to my children, cars and football.

 

The court might suggest the house is sold if there is sufficient equity to be split etc in a financial order, the issue can be by the time you have paid solicitors, mortgage fees, estate agents, moving costs, stamp duty, higher mortgage rate (payments) having a cheaper house isn't necessarily cheaper unless its a huge amount cheaper. I suppose they would take every circumstance into consideration. You would probably need to present quite a strongly costed example highlighting the feasibility.

 

In my circumstance selling the 4 bed house and her getting a 3 bed one, with the higher prices of 3 beds now it just isn't viable, she will in time bed able to take on the mortgage, I know as she has a good job. So I have to bide my time until then. I suppose if there is never a hope of your partners ex being able to take on the mortgage the house will have to be sold and she will have to get a cheaper one or rent within her own means. Its fair enough saying you want to keep the house independently if you can afford it alone, if there is no realistic possibility of that its not fair to hold back the other person from moving on. I think the court would have to look at that, their are consequences when relationships end which unfortunately some people fail to understand.

[Toddybad]

That sounds ridiculous. Sorry to anybody screwed like this. Surely it should be that if they can't afford the mortgage the house gets sold.

[FoxesDeb]

1 hour ago, Toddybad said:

That sounds ridiculous. Sorry to anybody screwed like this. Surely it should be that if they can't afford the mortgage the house gets sold.

You would think so, and my immediate reaction when I saw the proposal was to think it was ridiculous, and easily challenged. But apparently not. 

[Innovindil]

Make sure house is empty. Burn it down. Insurance money goes 50/50.

 

If his names on the mortgage chances are he'd be buggered getting another mortgage on top of that unless he makes a shit ton of money. Screw that nonsense.

[Vacamion]

8 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Make sure house is empty. Burn it down. Insurance money goes 50/50.

 

If his names on the mortgage chances are he'd be buggered getting another mortgage on top of that unless he makes a shit ton of money. Screw that nonsense.

 

Insurance Investigator here.

 

It is very likely that there would be no insurance money paid to anyone.

 

Any major fire would prompt an expert forensic examination where the cause and origin of the fire would be investigated.  If they establish human agency and show on balance that someone who stood to gain was anywhere near, the policy's exclusion for damage caused deliberately could kick in, causing the claim to be declined.

 

A broken down relationship or financial dispute would be seen as a potential motive and would trigger an investigation.

 

Court proceedings are a matter of public record, so it's already "out there" that there has been a dispute.

 

If any of the above factors are present but not yet established (large loss, concerns about cause, possible motive) the Insurers would instruct an investigation, where anyone who stands to benefit would undergo an audio-recorded interview and be asked to sign a statement.   Their background, financial, criminal and insurance history will be delved into, as well as social media. The investigation might involve CCTV or neighbour enquiries or phone records, asking for proof of whereabouts, etc.

 

If, in pursuing the claim, anyone has said anything which was later shown to be false, the insurance policy's fraud condition might kick in, which brings all kinds of extra trouble.  

 

Not only do they boot out the claim, the Insurers then seek a return of their premium payments and of any money they spent investigating the claim.  They also put the policyholder(s) onto a fraud database, meaning they will struggle to get insurance of any kind for years.  They also report the policyholder to the police.  There is a specialist anti insurance fraud unit in the police who liaise with the insurers to bring such cases to court.

 

That's all if the initial assessment by the Fire & Rescue service hasn't already prompted an investigation by their experts,  and by the police, leading to a charge of arson.

 

Lastly, the wrangling over this could take years, during which the mortgage would still be still due.

 

So yeah, arson for insurance purposes is a spectacularly bad idea.

 

 

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

Insurance Investigator here.

 

It is very likely that there would be no insurance money paid to anyone.

 

Any major fire would prompt an expert forensic examination where the cause and origin of the fire would be investigated.  If they establish human agency and show on balance that someone who stood to gain was anywhere near, the policy's exclusion for damage caused deliberately could kick in, causing the claim to be declined.

 

A broken down relationship or financial dispute would be seen as a potential motive and would trigger an investigation.

 

Court proceedings are a matter of public record, so it's already "out there" that there has been a dispute.

 

If any of the above factors are present but not yet established (large loss, concerns about cause, possible motive) the Insurers would instruct an investigation, where anyone who stands to benefit would undergo an audio-recorded interview and be asked to sign a statement.   Their background, financial, criminal and insurance history will be delved into, as well as social media. The investigation might involve CCTV or neighbour enquiries or phone records, asking for proof of whereabouts, etc.

 

If, in pursuing the claim, anyone has said anything which was later shown to be false, the insurance policy's fraud condition might kick in, which brings all kinds of extra trouble.  

 

Not only do they boot out the claim, the Insurers then seek a return of their premium payments and of any money they spent investigating the claim.  They also put the policyholder(s) onto a fraud database, meaning they will struggle to get insurance of any kind for years.  They also report the policyholder to the police.  There is a specialist anti insurance fraud unit in the police who liaise with the insurers to bring such cases to court.

 

That's all if the initial assessment by the Fire & Rescue service hasn't already prompted an investigation by their experts,  and by the police, leading to a charge of arson.

 

Lastly, the wrangling over this could take years, during which the mortgage would still be still due.

 

So yeah, arson for insurance purposes is a spectacularly bad idea.

 

 

All good info. Though I was joking. My mistake for not putting a  at the end. 

[Strokes]

23 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

Insurance Investigator here.

 

It is very likely that there would be no insurance money paid to anyone.

 

Any major fire would prompt an expert forensic examination where the cause and origin of the fire would be investigated.  If they establish human agency and show on balance that someone who stood to gain was anywhere near, the policy's exclusion for damage caused deliberately could kick in, causing the claim to be declined.

 

A broken down relationship or financial dispute would be seen as a potential motive and would trigger an investigation.

 

Court proceedings are a matter of public record, so it's already "out there" that there has been a dispute.

 

If any of the above factors are present but not yet established (large loss, concerns about cause, possible motive) the Insurers would instruct an investigation, where anyone who stands to benefit would undergo an audio-recorded interview and be asked to sign a statement.   Their background, financial, criminal and insurance history will be delved into, as well as social media. The investigation might involve CCTV or neighbour enquiries or phone records, asking for proof of whereabouts, etc.

 

If, in pursuing the claim, anyone has said anything which was later shown to be false, the insurance policy's fraud condition might kick in, which brings all kinds of extra trouble.  

 

Not only do they boot out the claim, the Insurers then seek a return of their premium payments and of any money they spent investigating the claim.  They also put the policyholder(s) onto a fraud database, meaning they will struggle to get insurance of any kind for years.  They also report the policyholder to the police.  There is a specialist anti insurance fraud unit in the police who liaise with the insurers to bring such cases to court.

 

That's all if the initial assessment by the Fire & Rescue service hasn't already prompted an investigation by their experts,  and by the police, leading to a charge of arson.

 

Lastly, the wrangling over this could take years, during which the mortgage would still be still due.

 

So yeah, arson for insurance purposes is a spectacularly bad idea.

 

 

Yeah if you want to burn your house down for insurance you have to be pretty clever these days, or just rent it to a bunch of students.

[Vacamion]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Yeah if you want to burn your house down for insurance you have to be pretty clever these days, or just rent it to a bunch of students.

 

Insurers wouldn't cover it if you hadn't advised them of the students living there.

 

And even if you had told them, they would insist on all sorts of fire prevention being in place before a claim was covered.

 

 

 

 

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

Insurers wouldn't cover it if you hadn't advised them of the students living there.

 

And even if you had told them, they would insist on all sorts of fire prevention being in place before a claim was covered.

 

 

 

 

Instead of telling us what won't work, probably a good idea to just give your expert opinion on how it could work. 

[Vacamion]

 

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Instead of telling us what won't work, probably a good idea to just give your expert opinion on how it could work. 

 

Candles.

 

They are really bloody dangerous.  I see loads of fire incidents caused by candles. 

 

The whole point of owning candles is to set them on fire and leave them burning.

 

But you would still get a protracted investigation and possibly not get paid out.

 

Anyways, apologies for the threadjacking...

 

 

[davieG]

2 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

Insurance Investigator here.

 

It is very likely that there would be no insurance money paid to anyone.

 

Any major fire would prompt an expert forensic examination where the cause and origin of the fire would be investigated.  If they establish human agency and show on balance that someone who stood to gain was anywhere near, the policy's exclusion for damage caused deliberately could kick in, causing the claim to be declined.

 

A broken down relationship or financial dispute would be seen as a potential motive and would trigger an investigation.

 

Court proceedings are a matter of public record, so it's already "out there" that there has been a dispute.

 

If any of the above factors are present but not yet established (large loss, concerns about cause, possible motive) the Insurers would instruct an investigation, where anyone who stands to benefit would undergo an audio-recorded interview and be asked to sign a statement.   Their background, financial, criminal and insurance history will be delved into, as well as social media. The investigation might involve CCTV or neighbour enquiries or phone records, asking for proof of whereabouts, etc.

 

If, in pursuing the claim, anyone has said anything which was later shown to be false, the insurance policy's fraud condition might kick in, which brings all kinds of extra trouble.  

 

Not only do they boot out the claim, the Insurers then seek a return of their premium payments and of any money they spent investigating the claim.  They also put the policyholder(s) onto a fraud database, meaning they will struggle to get insurance of any kind for years.  They also report the policyholder to the police.  There is a specialist anti insurance fraud unit in the police who liaise with the insurers to bring such cases to court.

 

That's all if the initial assessment by the Fire & Rescue service hasn't already prompted an investigation by their experts,  and by the police, leading to a charge of arson.

 

Lastly, the wrangling over this could take years, during which the mortgage would still be still due.

 

So yeah, arson for insurance purposes is a spectacularly bad idea.

 

 

Yeah, Yeah but aside from all that would it work?

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, davieG said:

Yeah, Yeah but aside from all that would it work?

 

[FoxesDeb]

So basically he needs to buy her candles from his children for Mothers day and hope for the best.... 

[Soar Fox]

18 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Make sure house is empty. Burn it down. Insurance money goes 50/50.

 

If his names on the mortgage chances are he'd be buggered getting another mortgage on top of that unless he makes a shit ton of money. Screw that nonsense.

Alright Mick Philpott

[Rob1742]

It is worth noting though than insurance firms are pretty canny. 
You can decide to under insure, or not tell them of changes etc, but if things do go wrong, expect them to find out and not pay out.

One of the best I heard was the rugby players saying they were farmers on their car insurance forms rather than rugby players as the premiums were lower. But once something happens, the insurance company doesn’t a quick google, realise you have false information and you are in a world of pain.

Off topic I know, but as Mr Insurance Investigator has made a point, I thought I’d stress that it is not wise to try and bend the rules with them.

[FoxesDeb]

Does anyone know if the courts will be interested in one party stating their intention to break a child arrangement order, before it's actually happened? 

Google isn't really much help... 

[Jon the Hat]

Ah that sucks.  If you have an independent witness or some other evidence then maybe - what does your partner's soliticitor say?

Edited 26 June 2020 by Jon the Hat