Final hearing re house - advice please

Hi
At the beginning of the year my ex (never married) instigated preceedings against me regarding the FMH. She went down the TOLATA route with an added Section 1 to include the children etc..she was asking for a lump sum/ house to be put in trust for her and the kids/ the judge to award a different share of the house other then 50/50 & for all her costs etc...there was no declaration of trust in place so as far as i am aware its 50/50 - she has to prove otherwise i believe.

Here is the tricky bit before we split we extended the house with an extension half of which was borrowed from my family. The ex does not want to pay back her half of the loan saying that i borrowed the money myself. My family has started proceeding against both myself and my ex to recover cost of loan.

I am asking for the FMH to be sold as its

1. a buy to let mortgage and niether of us should be living in the house
2. family needs money back
3. i need some money from the sale
4. i also really need to get my name off the mortgage

I have offered to buy her out in the past with an offer of more than half of the equity - she refused and said she wanted more?? She offered to buy me out but at a considerably lower amount than my offer?

So now i am left wondering if my attempt to get this house sold is a futile excercise and wondering if my solicitor is just milking me for more money when the outcome of this case will probably go her way and my family and me get nothing.

Am i wasting my time even going to court etc... solicitor wants me to have a barrister for the FDR - says i really need one? Am just wanting this experience to come to an end - spent the last 14 months fighting her through the courts to get contact with my children ( already cost an unbelievable amount of money) am i now just throwing my money down my solicitors pocket or should i see it through till the end??

Will a judge order a sale of the property when there are children living with her? What are the chances of her being awarded costs if she wins and succesfully gets the house put into trust etc...



Thanks in advance for your help..

I guess the key thing here is how she and the children are going to be housed if not in the FMH.
How much equity is there? How much mortgage could she get? What would a suitable house cost?
Also if she stayed put, could she afford the running costs?
The problem with the loan from your family is that family loans are generally treated as "soft" ie not intended to be paid back. Have you got a loan agreement and a schedule of repayments?

It is possible that, even if the FMH was sold, she would be allowed to use all of the equity to repurchase and hold on to it until the youngest is 18.

Is it really not possible for you to sort this out between you, perhaps with the help of a mediator, rather than line the pockets of lawyers with money that could benefit your children.

You ask about costs. This should have been explained to you. It is my understanding that in property law cases, the "loser" pays all costs. I am not sure if the children act element has any bearing on this.

Hadenoughnow

She sounds lovely. Just be glad you never put a ring on her finger and called her "wife"- you may have been further insulted with a spousal maintanence order.

Get a GOOD barrister, as otherwise no point- she sounds ruthless and as if she will not stop until she has everything she wants. Get documentation that it was a loan. Soft or not, it has to be paid back and you need to try and prove this. I have read on here where women have had ''soft'' loans from family to pay legal bills and these were treated as liabilities so fight your corner.

Good luck

A judgement needs to be made as to what can be gained/lost and at what cost. Fighting your corner can be expensive. These types of proceedings are complicated and therefore the legal costs are high so mediation can be worthwhile.

The general court rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party''s costs applies. For example, in one case the dispute was about equity worth £25k and the litigant in person was ordered to pay and had a costs order of £50k awarded against them.