Removing ex from Title Deeds - HELP

[king12345]

Hi King - I think (hope) we've already established she can not benefit from 'unjust enrichment' since moving out. So any amount due would be from start to 10years ago.

 

In terms of housewife at home etc - friend worked, gave ex money for the kids/food etc, and he paid the mortgage and all maintenance - she never put a penny in. She moved out and had mental health issues, to the point of being sectioned. Friend then did everything: worked, paid mortgage and raised the kids.

 

I am thinking the first best step would be for him to change the type or ownership - from joint tenants to tenants in common. This safeguards his share of ownership.

 

Does he then have the ability to outline what size the share was/is? Or is it automatically 50/50?

 

 

 

Secondly, there is the issue of both names being on the mortgage. I now understand that it is hard to remove ex name from the title deeds whilst there is a loan. There is not much left on the mortgage - maybe 2y worth of payments. Might it be within his interest to redeem the mortgage?? if he can. Borrow the money from somewhere else and repay the loan that has both their names on. I am thinking that may resolve that issue. Then it is just a Land Registry issue to remove ex name.

 

 

 

I have suggested friend works out exactly his expenditure from purchase to date she moved out - ie deposit paid, all mortgage payments and maintenance/refurb costs. And I have suggested he researches the sale prices of similar properties in his neighbourhood 10y ago. That should give him an apx value of the property 10y ago, less all his expenses. I assume he will have to pay ex something. But with research on values 10y ago and a long list of money and time (which equals money) he invested in the property, surely he would be able to come up with a figure to give ex - albeit lower than she expects??

 

 

 

The sort of figures talking about are: purchase at 75k / apx value 10y ago at 325k. Deposit was apx 8k; 10y of mortgage payments apx 10k/pa (he paid all); plus renovation costs. Friend has continued to pay a further 10y of mortgage payments and property maintenance expenses. (apx 20y total ownership)

 

What would be a normal acceptable figure to offer ex?? Based on all the above.....

 

I'm not too sure that the "unjust enrichment" argument would apply to this case.

This is an online forum, not a court of law, so you can only obtain educated guesses about complex situations, not a definitive sentence.

It's not unusual for the law to appear somehow unjust, so don't be surprised.

All of these calculations are simply speculative.

Your friend could use them to persuade his ex to accept an offer, but if she doesn't accept, do not think for a split second that he can remove her name from the house without her consent.

If that was possible, gold diggers around the country would be at it everyday.

Again i suggest that your friend seeks assistance from a specialised solicitor who would probably advise on negotiation first.

Should that fail, possibly a court case would be the next step, but only an expert can advise.

One thing is surely impossible: Removing her name without her knowledge or consent, unless she dies.

[Old Cogger]

solicitors would state hold out to client, as I found out years ago, partner left and moved in with another person, only ever made one payment to help pay Mortgage, so to clear up the case after a long wait to see if they would sign divorce papers and failing to at late stage, had to agree 50/50 (so called I lost more than 50%), also a provisal a signed agreement That no claim on one/other income/receipts/estates from external wills etc can be claimed = clean break 100%

[Ethel Street]

'Unjust enrichment' is a very complex area of English law and I doubt anyone here could tell you with any certainty whether or not it applies in this case so I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "we've already established she can not benefit from 'unjust enrichment". How have you established that?

 

In any case your situation has so many legal complications that you really need advice from a solicitor. You are not going to get all the answers you need on a general forum like this one. We are not lawyers. Hopefully the advice you have had here will help your friend frame the questions you want a solicitor to answer but do not act without professional legal advice. There's too much at stake to do otherwise.

[Old Cogger]

Married Spouses and Unjust Enrichment: Martin v Sansome

https://blog.separation.ca/unjust-enrichment-martin-v-samsome/

1 Aug 2014 - In this case, the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act adequately addressed the unjust enrichment arising out of the marriage. The Court, however, recognized that there may be rare cases where monetary damages for unjust enrichment arising out of marriage cannot be addressed by these ...

[Ethel Street]

Married Spouses and Unjust Enrichment: Martin v Sansome

https://blog.separation.ca/unjust-enrichment-martin-v-samsome/

1 Aug 2014 - In this case, the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act adequately addressed the unjust enrichment arising out of the marriage. The Court, however, recognized that there may be rare cases where monetary damages for unjust enrichment arising out of marriage cannot be addressed by these ...

 

Not sure how that's relevant to OP. It's a Canadian law case and the background was very different - in the Canadian case they had been married but wife's name wasn't on deeds, in OP's case they were never married and the name is on the deeds. I still think OP should get professional legal advice.

[Old Cogger]

Avoidance of unjust enrichment in property disputes of ... - Blogs

blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/sls/files/2013/08/Olga-Beinarovica.pdf

 

http://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/sls/files/2013/08/Olga-Beinarovica.pdf

 

Abstract:

Cohabitation has become an increasingly widespread phenomenon as an alternative to

marriage. However, research shows that among other issues there are significant practical and

legal difficulties concerning common property, especially if compared to separation of spouses.

A principle of fairness has to be a leading basis for division of common property

acquired by cohabitants during the relationship. Unjust enrichment of one of cohabitants in a

property dispute should be avoided as property does not comply with the same legal rules when

divorcing a marriage. Justice as equity principle was first set by a court in Stack v Dowden case,

which could be considered as a clear indication of unjust enrichment prevention provision.

The purpose of the article is to examine how the principle has been implemented in

legislation and case law of Europe, especially in jurisdictions that do not legally recognise

cohabitation. Additionally, the study aims to analyse how regularity of influence of the principle

could be applied when shaping the modern concept of family law in Europe

[Ethel Street]

Avoidance of unjust enrichment in property disputes of ... - Blogs

blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/sls/files/2013/08/Olga-Beinarovica.pdf

 

http://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/sls/files/2013/08/Olga-Beinarovica.pdf

 

Abstract:

Cohabitation has become an increasingly widespread phenomenon as an alternative to

marriage. However, research shows that among other issues there are significant practical and

legal difficulties concerning common property, especially if compared to separation of spouses.

A principle of fairness has to be a leading basis for division of common property

acquired by cohabitants during the relationship. Unjust enrichment of one of cohabitants in a

property dispute should be avoided as property does not comply with the same legal rules when

divorcing a marriage. Justice as equity principle was first set by a court in Stack v Dowden case,

which could be considered as a clear indication of unjust enrichment prevention provision.

The purpose of the article is to examine how the principle has been implemented in

legislation and case law of Europe, especially in jurisdictions that do not legally recognise

cohabitation. Additionally, the study aims to analyse how regularity of influence of the principle

could be applied when shaping the modern concept of family law in Europe

 

I'm not sure whether you disagree with me or not Old Cogger, with my advice to OP that "'Unjust enrichment' is a very complex area of English law and I doubt anyone here could tell you with any certainty whether or not it applies in this case". Have you established for OP that it does apply to OP's circumstances?

[Old Cogger]

do not disagree with - but shows it is a mine field - cohabitation is a mine field and many have found out! but the peep should now realise there could be problems ahead - forewarned is forearmed, meanwhile hope this one pans out for them! -

 

and not forgetting cost elements as many report!