Divorce and property advice

[FoxesDeb]

My ex husband and I divorced in 2014, and part of the divorce agreement was that I would relinquish my claim on the family home, and he was to remove me from the mortgage within 28 days.

 

Fast forward to now and this still hasn't been done, I've now received documents to sign which require me to either obtain a UK solicitor, which I can't in Spain, or visit the Land Registry in the UK in person, which I don't want to do.

 

Given that I'm more than happy to make his life as difficult as possible for reasons I won't go in to here, does anyone know if I actually need to do any of this? He wants to get it done now as he's still tied in to a mortgage he wants to change, I'm happy to just continue to ignore it.

[Guest Mickyblueeyes]

Family law isn’t my area but applying general law. 
 

1. When you say agreement, was it by way of court order or an agreement between the parties ? If it was the former, he is in breach of court order and enforcement is a possibility. If it’s the latter, there will be an indemnity clause for breach meaning he is required to meet costs incurred by you as a result of that breach (check the agreement) and that flows into 2;

 

2. I’m assuming he is trying to refinance the property and the form you have been sent confirms that despite being named on the mortgage, as you have removed as proprietor (assuming) could you confirm that you hold no interest in the property. Arguably, as he is in breach of the agreement/order in 2, he has little recourse (as he risk enforcement for breach), however, I would suggest that to protect yourself, (if I am correct in my assumption) that you do have yourself removed from the mortgage and your risk and liabilities under it, especially if you’ve been removed as proprietor - they can still hold you liable for breach. 
 

hope that helps - if I have got the initial comments wrong, let me know. 

 

[FoxesDeb]

9 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Family law isn’t my area but applying general law. 
 

1. When you say agreement, was it by way of court order or an agreement between the parties ? If it was the former, he is in breach of court order and enforcement is a possibility. If it’s the latter, there will be an indemnity clause for breach meaning he is required to meet costs incurred by you as a result of that breach (check the agreement) and that flows into 2;

 

2. I’m assuming he is trying to refinance the property and the form you have been sent confirms that despite being named on the mortgage, as you have removed as proprietor (assuming) could you confirm that you hold no interest in the property. Arguably, as he is in breach of the agreement/order in 2, he has little recourse (as he risk enforcement for breach), however, I would suggest that to protect yourself, (if I am correct in my assumption) that you do have yourself removed from the mortgage and your risk and liabilities under it, especially if you’ve been removed as proprietor - they can still hold you liable for breach. 
 

hope that helps - if I have got the initial comments wrong, let me know. 

 

Thank you, yes you are pretty spot on with your assumptions. The court order was for him to remove me from liability regarding the mortgage within 28 days of said order, which obviously he hasn't done. He wants to do it now as he has been stuck in a variable rate mortgage for goodness knows how long now, and is keen to obtain a better rate.

 

I'm still named on the deeds of the house and with the land registry, the forms I have been sent are for me to sign to transfer propriety of the property in to his name, and agreeing to relinquish any financial claim on it.

 

 

[Guest Mickyblueeyes]

46 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Thank you, yes you are pretty spot on with your assumptions. The court order was for him to remove me from liability regarding the mortgage within 28 days of said order, which obviously he hasn't done. He wants to do it now as he has been stuck in a variable rate mortgage for goodness knows how long now, and is keen to obtain a better rate.

 

I'm still named on the deeds of the house and with the land registry, the forms I have been sent are for me to sign to transfer propriety of the property in to his name, and agreeing to relinquish any financial claim on it.

 

 

I would if you could get a solicitor involved. Identity can still be verified even though you’re abroad.

 

few reasons for it:

 

1. as he had breached the order, you could probably get your costs paid;

2 ensure that you have received everything you should’ve received pre-signing the TR1 you’ve been sent;

3 making sure you are released from the mortgage you are currently bound to - this being critical.
 

Otherwise, if it’s a position where you want to transfer your interest in the property, it’s probably a TR1 form you have been sent and the process is pretty simple.  

[Jon the Hat]

Hang on - if he failed to take you off the house, do you perhaps still own half a house that might have increased in value significantly?

[jonthefox]

59 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Hang on - if he failed to take you off the house, do you perhaps still own half a house that might have increased in value significantly?

 Beers are on @FoxesDeb

[Guest Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Hang on - if he failed to take you off the house, do you perhaps still own half a house that might have increased in value significantly?

The only thing to flag with this, is yes, there will be an increase in value but the settlement agreement which has been signed effectively means it’s settled at the sum as at the effective date of the agreement. 
 

With your ex being in breach, there may be a possibility to terminate the agreement, therefore opening up a claim to the revised value but that would mean the settlement process would have to restart - which might be more hassle then it’s worth. 
 

In short, have a solicitor read through the agreement.

[kingcarr21]

Anybody else sat here hoping for @FoxesDeb to spill the tea on her ex?

 

We can make a game of this

 

My guess is he spent all the life savings on a terrible investment

 

Or more likely he was just terrible at Wordle and she couldnt be with someone like that  

[joachim1965]

39 minutes ago, kingcarr21 said:

Anybody else sat here hoping for @FoxesDeb to spill the tea on her ex?

 

We can make a game of this

 

My guess is he spent all the life savings on a terrible investment

 

Or more likely he was just terrible at Wordle and she couldnt be with someone like that  

He was a Nottingham Forest supporter.

[FoyleFox]

4 hours ago, kingcarr21 said:

Anybody else sat here hoping for @FoxesDeb to spill the tea on her ex?

 

We can make a game of this

 

My guess is he spent all the life savings on a terrible investment

 

Or more likely he was just terrible at Wordle and she couldnt be with someone like that  

Before we do, I think I have a recollection of there being some unkind and cruel behaviour from him concerning Deb's recent bereavement. 

Sorry to butt in and if I've got that wrong @FoxesDeb but, I wouldn't want us to unknowingly make light of something that was such a sad and difficult time. 

[Parafox]

I have nothing to add except that you are a decent person.

 

Given all that you have gone through, I hope you get it sorted and all in your favour. 

[FoxesDeb]

Sorry to dredge up such an old thread, especially one all about me! but this still hasn't been resolved. The internet is telling me I could pursue my half of the house through TOLATA? We are tenants in common on the land registry and apparently that makes a difference, I'm hoping someone like @Mickyblueeyes might have at least some knowledge of this before I employ a costly solicitor.

 

The general vibe I'm getting is that while I did agree he could keep the house back when we divorced I did so because all three of my children lived there, for their stability, now they no longer do and as he hasn't kept his side of the agreement in removing me from the mortgage I've been at financial risk all this time, and entitled to my share, even now, because he didn't complete our agreement.

 

I need this to be resolved one way or another and I really don't want any aggravation so part of me says I should just sign it over, but then my share of a house purchased in 2007 is likely to be sizeable so not to be ignored if it really is something I'm legally entitled to.

 

 

 

[VLC86]

20 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Sorry to dredge up such an old thread, especially one all about me! but this still hasn't been resolved. The internet is telling me I could pursue my half of the house through TOLATA? We are tenants in common on the land registry and apparently that makes a difference, I'm hoping someone like @Mickyblueeyes might have at least some knowledge of this before I employ a costly solicitor.

 

The general vibe I'm getting is that while I did agree he could keep the house back when we divorced I did so because all three of my children lived there, for their stability, now they no longer do and as he hasn't kept his side of the agreement in removing me from the mortgage I've been at financial risk all this time, and entitled to my share, even now, because he didn't complete our agreement.

 

I need this to be resolved one way or another and I really don't want any aggravation so part of me says I should just sign it over, but then my share of a house purchased in 2007 is likely to be sizeable so not to be ignored if it really is something I'm legally entitled to.

 

 

 

I don’t know the ins and outs from a legal point of view, but regarding the mortgage usually the bank would want to understand how your part of the interest has been settled E.G has he agreed to pay you some money rather than you have a share of the equity. Search for Undue Influence.

 

It may or may not apply in your case but worth looking into.

[Trav Le Bleu]

48 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Sorry to dredge up such an old thread, especially one all about me! but this still hasn't been resolved. The internet is telling me I could pursue my half of the house through TOLATA? We are tenants in common on the land registry and apparently that makes a difference, I'm hoping someone like @Mickyblueeyes might have at least some knowledge of this before I employ a costly solicitor.

 

The general vibe I'm getting is that while I did agree he could keep the house back when we divorced I did so because all three of my children lived there, for their stability, now they no longer do and as he hasn't kept his side of the agreement in removing me from the mortgage I've been at financial risk all this time, and entitled to my share, even now, because he didn't complete our agreement.

 

I need this to be resolved one way or another and I really don't want any aggravation so part of me says I should just sign it over, but then my share of a house purchased in 2007 is likely to be sizeable so not to be ignored if it really is something I'm legally entitled to.

 

 

 

He's probably still jealous of that dashing young postman that occasionally called at the house while he wasn't in.

 

Hope you get this sorted!

 

NB, while the first paragraph is somewhat true, it's entirely innocent

 

[Mike Oxlong]

I think you'll find it hard to reopen a settled concluded agreement where both of you had access to or the availability of legal advice simply because you remained on the mortgage but without any actual loss or significant detriment to yourself such as to give grounds to conclude that the original agreement should be set aside 

 

The info in the link below indicates how unusual it is for a court to set aside a concluded agreement. If you wish to try you need to prepared for a long and costly court case as I'm sure your ex would fight it. I imagine you will consider the monetary and emotional cost of looking to reopen matters against what you might gain if successful having regard to the likelihood of success 

 

https://www.clarkewillmott.com/insights/can-a-divorce-financial-settlement-be-reopened/

Edited 11 January by Mike Oxlong

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I think you'll find it hard to reopen a settled concluded agreement where both of you had access to or the availability of legal advice simply because you remained on the mortgage but without any actual loss or significant detriment to yourself such as to give grounds to conclude that the original agreement should be set aside 

 

The info in the link below indicates how unusual it is for a court to set aside a concluded agreement. If you wish to try you need to prepared for a long and costly court case as I'm sure your ex would fight it 

 

https://www.clarkewillmott.com/insights/can-a-divorce-financial-settlement-be-reopened/

I think the difference here is that the original matter wasn't settled because my ex husband didn't obey his order to remove me from the deeds and the mortgage, so it's not the same as trying to reopen a concluded matter, it's just revisiting one that was never settled

[Mike Oxlong]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

I think the difference here is that the original matter wasn't settled because my ex husband didn't obey his order to remove me from the deeds and the mortgage, so it's not the same as trying to reopen a concluded matter, it's just revisiting one that was never settled

Ok. My mistake. I read your reference to divorce agreement in the OP as something that was formally concluded at the time.