Set aside a consent order

My initial reaction is that each party could have requested an up to date valuation at any point prior to submitting the consent application.

Each party would have had to file a statement of information (or joint statement, signed by both parties) with the application. The wife presumably signed to confirm the value of the property - why did she do this is the value of the property was in question?

Nonetheless, the court can look to the purported increase in the property value. If the increase is not great, proportionately, it is not worth the court getting involved.

Reversing the situation, if the property had gone down in value would the wife be looking to make a contribution to husband for his loss? Or would it be appropriate for the husband to now make an application to set aside based on the fall in value?

Charles

Hi Fiona,

I thought i would post an update and get the forum''s thoughts as we are heading towards the FDR next week.


Basically it has been agreed that regardless of the mutual agreement we had, i had ann obligation to ensure that all figures were up to date when the Consent Order was lodged. with this in mind we jointly instructed estate agants to value both properties as of the date the consent order was signed and also on the date that the consent order was approved 4 months later (large backlog apparently)

The valuations came back as follows

At the date of signing the order and submitting it, the houses had only risen by circa £25k thus providing an additional 12k each. that was from jan 2012-October 2013. Not a very big rise when one considers that i was paying both mortgages and all of the debts in this period and in fact the increase is really only due to the fact that i paid 10k off the mortgage in this period through monthly payments and spent 15 on renovations to increase the value

However, the estate agents valued the properties astonishingly higher at the date the order was approved (4 months later) which equates to a total of 100k equity =50k each

Clearly, the latest figures pose an issue but surely it is only reasonable to assume that all property prices and asset valuations should be correct at the time of signing and submitting the order otherwise one would have to submit the order then ring estate agents every week to check house prices and then continuously amend the paperwork

reading various cases it looks like this falls into the category of "natural market fluctuations" rather than material non disclosure right?


Look forward to hearing your thoughts


Mark

Hi all,

I thought i would post an update and get the forum''s thoughts as we are heading towards the FDR next week.


Basically it has been agreed that regardless of the mutual agreement we had, i had ann obligation to ensure that all figures were up to date when the consent order was lodged. with this in mind we jointly instructed estate agent''s to value both properties as of the date the consent order was signed and also on the date that the consent order was approved 4 months later (large backlog apparently)

The valuations came back as follows

At the date of signing the order and submitting it, the houses had only risen by circa £25k thus providing an additional 12k each. that was from jan 2012-October 2013. Not a very big rise when one considers that i was paying both mortgages and all of the debts in this period and in fact the increase is really only due to the fact that i paid 10k off the mortgage in this period through monthly payments and spent 15 on renovations to increase the value

However, the estate agents valued the properties astonishingly higher at the date the order was approved (4 months later) which equates to a total of 100k equity =50k each

Clearly, the latest figures pose an issue but surely it is only reasonable to assume that all property prices and asset valuations should be correct at the time of signing and submitting the order otherwise one would have to submit the order then ring estate agents every week to check house prices and then continuously amend the paperwork

reading various cases it looks like this falls into the category of "natural market fluctuations" rather than material non disclosure right?


Look forward to hearing your thoughts


Mark