Motoring0 min ago
House ownership
My husband was previously married and he and his ex-wife had a house in joint names. They divorced 17 years ago and I married him.
However, although his house was put into our names, he never removed the name of his ex-wife from the deeds.
Now he has died and his ex-wife has come forward to say that she wants half of the house, even though I have been paying the mortgage for the past 17 years!
What is her legal entitlement?
However, although his house was put into our names, he never removed the name of his ex-wife from the deeds.
Now he has died and his ex-wife has come forward to say that she wants half of the house, even though I have been paying the mortgage for the past 17 years!
What is her legal entitlement?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pegasus50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.If the property was held between the three of you as tenants in common then there were presumably three equal shares and if so the ex is entitled to a one third share. Your husband presumably willed his one third share to you, the ex or someone else. If to you or the ex then of course one of you will have a two thirds share.
If the property was held between the three of you as joint tenants then there is no division at this time (the death of your husband) but later on the one of you (ex or you) which outlives the other takes the whole property upon the death of the first one of the two of you.
If the property was held between the three of you as joint tenants then there is no division at this time (the death of your husband) but later on the one of you (ex or you) which outlives the other takes the whole property upon the death of the first one of the two of you.
As your husband arranged for your name to be added to the deeds it seems unlikely he left his ex-wife's name on them by mistake. This implies it was left there for some reason to do with their divorce settlement. If you still have his divorce papers they may give an explanation.
As Ethel says, you need a solicitor.
As Ethel says, you need a solicitor.
Do you have the original divorce papers,as the solicitor acting for your late husband should have got both parties to sign a document which states that after the divorce neither party has a right to the other financially. You will eventually have to obtain a solicitor,so why not go to the practice who dealt with the original divorce
If the ex is named as a proprietor on the Deeds (if the property is un-registered) or as proprietor on the Register at the Land Registry (if the property is Registered) it does not matter one jot whether the ex's name got there via the Man in the Moon or the divorce. The fact is that the ex is a proprietor and it cannot be undone.
There are only two ways of holding property jointly with others - tenants in common or joint tenants. I have set out the probable situation with each in my first post.
The claim that pegasus paid the mortgage for 17 years is of no account - pegasus also lived there for seventeen years occupying the ex's space and the mortgage payments simply equal the rent due to the ex.
There are only two ways of holding property jointly with others - tenants in common or joint tenants. I have set out the probable situation with each in my first post.
The claim that pegasus paid the mortgage for 17 years is of no account - pegasus also lived there for seventeen years occupying the ex's space and the mortgage payments simply equal the rent due to the ex.
It does matter how the name got there. If it resulted from the divorce settlement then it could well be the case that the divorce papers have more detail than the land registry or deeds about the precise circumstances and any conditions attached. In my view it is important to get hold of the divorce papers before anything else is done.
I am sorry to have to say that your statement immediately above is false, themas. As is your concurrence with Ethel that the employment of a solicitor is necessary - two adult sensible people should be able to find compromise in a matter of this sort on their own without the money-grabbing-money-up-front-for-nonsense weasels. A few pounds at the Land Registry then seals the compromise. pegasus has not revisited this thread so I shall not be making any further comment.
I expressed a view - in other words an opinion. I am entitled to my opinion and you are incorrect in saying it is false. As regards my comment that the divorce papers could well (note the qualification) have more detail than the land registry entry, I have certainly seen cases where using the registry entry alone could be misleading. Like anyone, the registry staff are human and therefore prone to error. If the circumstances applied to me I would certainly not be happy to give up half the value of the property without finding out why the ex wife was on the title and whether this was correct or an oversight.