Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Back to forum list |
Back to The Lounge |
Jump to newest |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She ran off 33 days after getting her hands on 15k. Now 7 yrs later she thinks I owe her 1/2 my only inheritance when she has all hers to come! " She sees you as a soft touch and by offering her 25% you may well be a soft touch. Tell her to go and see a solicitor and you do the same. She won't get a penny unless you cave in to her. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry forgot to add that we are both only in touch via as mentioned above. Even though I do have her phone no & address I have decided to bite my tongue in case I say something which I may later regret." And has your solicitor advised you to offer her 25%? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, that was my offer after she wanted 50%. Solicitor can't advise you, only follow your instructions? " Rubbish. It is your solicitor's duty to provide you with an assessment of the legal principles underlying the dispute, the range of potential outcomes, the chances of success and any associated risks. All of this should be outlined in the Customer Care Letter you should have received when the solicitor agreed to take on your case if it wasn't given to you in the initial interview. The SRA say, in the Solicitors Handbook - "clients must be in a position to make informed decisions about: the services they need how their matter will be handled, and the options available to them While much of the information given in the initial interview will help clients come to an informed decision, the written information given at the start of a retainer, whether in a client care letter or some other format, will also be important in meeting this outcome." If I've read your version oevents right, your solicitor made the offer of 25% - was this in the form of a 'Calderbank' letter? (Your solicitor may have called it a 'without prejudices save as to costs' letter, or possibly a 'without prejudice' letter? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, that was my offer after she wanted 50%. Solicitor can't advise you, only follow your instructions? Rubbish. It is your solicitor's duty to provide you with an assessment of the legal principles underlying the dispute, the range of potential outcomes, the chances of success and any associated risks. All of this should be outlined in the Customer Care Letter you should have received when the solicitor agreed to take on your case if it wasn't given to you in the initial interview. The SRA say, in the Solicitors Handbook - "clients must be in a position to make informed decisions about: the services they need how their matter will be handled, and the options available to them While much of the information given in the initial interview will help clients come to an informed decision, the written information given at the start of a retainer, whether in a client care letter or some other format, will also be important in meeting this outcome." If I've read your version oevents right, your solicitor made the offer of 25% - was this in the form of a 'Calderbank' letter? (Your solicitor may have called it a 'without prejudices save as to costs' letter, or possibly a 'without prejudice' letter? " | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, that was my offer after she wanted 50%. Solicitor can't advise you, only follow your instructions? Rubbish. It is your solicitor's duty to provide you with an assessment of the legal principles underlying the dispute, the range of potential outcomes, the chances of success and any associated risks. All of this should be outlined in the Customer Care Letter you should have received when the solicitor agreed to take on your case if it wasn't given to you in the initial interview. The SRA say, in the Solicitors Handbook - "clients must be in a position to make informed decisions about: the services they need how their matter will be handled, and the options available to them While much of the information given in the initial interview will help clients come to an informed decision, the written information given at the start of a retainer, whether in a client care letter or some other format, will also be important in meeting this outcome." If I've read your version oevents right, your solicitor made the offer of 25% - was this in the form of a 'Calderbank' letter? (Your solicitor may have called it a 'without prejudices save as to costs' letter, or possibly a 'without prejudice' letter? " You won't get better advise than this post....Awayman is dead right on this one. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have sold my house which my dad built & left to me. Had a loan against it which involved my ex g/f 1996-2005(no kids) putting her name on the deeds. Now she wants 50%, I have offered 25%, 5 weeks ago, with no response! I could be homeless & technically penniless by Friday! Very Grrrrr Have you had an experiences that have made you think " I want to fuck her up the arse.................with a cactus" " Sorry but you knew what it meant to put her name on the deeds... and obviously had a good reason to at the time which worked in your favour... otherwise why have her name put on. I don't agree with people being ripped-off.... but if someone is legally entitled to something and you didn't plan for it... tough shit. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Everything has to be in your Sons,Daughters or Dogs name for 8 years before you can get away with that one.I once employed a Female who acquired 3 property's in 10 years.That was after she worked for me. Sorry but most guys don't think with there Brains. " | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, that was my offer after she wanted 50%. Solicitor can't advise you, only follow your instructions? " It sounds very much like you need a new solicitor. If you aren't even aware that your solicitor is supposed to advise you as well as take your instructions then he hasn't explained his function to you properly. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have sold my house which my dad built & left to me. Had a loan against it which involved my ex g/f 1996-2005(no kids) putting her name on the deeds. Now she wants 50%, I have offered 25%, 5 weeks ago, with no response! I could be homeless & technically penniless by Friday! Very Grrrrr Have you had an experiences that have made you think " I want to fuck her up the arse.................with a cactus" Sorry but you knew what it meant to put her name on the deeds... and obviously had a good reason to at the time which worked in your favour... otherwise why have her name put on. I don't agree with people being ripped-off.... but if someone is legally entitled to something and you didn't plan for it... tough shit." Totally agree with this post. If the law favours her share there must be a bloody good reason. As far as Solicitors being slow, am proof of that. It is 2 years this month and my settlement from a marriage is still going through. I was divorced last year. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have sold my house which my dad built & left to me. Had a loan against it which involved my ex g/f 1996-2005(no kids) putting her name on the deeds. Now she wants 50%, I have offered 25%, 5 weeks ago, with no response! I could be homeless & technically penniless by Friday! Very Grrrrr Have you had an experiences that have made you think " I want to fuck her up the arse.................with a cactus" Sorry but you knew what it meant to put her name on the deeds... and obviously had a good reason to at the time which worked in your favour... otherwise why have her name put on. I don't agree with people being ripped-off.... but if someone is legally entitled to something and you didn't plan for it... tough shit." Maybe the OP can confirm or correct me but it does sound awfully like this woman set out to fleece him as soon as she knew she could. Did she make all the usual promises con artists use like 'yes, I will pay it back', or 'I love you so much, do this thing for me'. Then when she'd got the cash, whooosh, like a rat out of an aquaduct, she's gone. The OP says she took £15k 7 years ago. Now I'm not shit hot at maths but even I know that no house in the east midlands 7 years ago was worth a total of £30k even if it was severely run down. How does that entitle her to 50%? If you want to apply the rule of law then she only became a shareholder in the property in 1996, remained in the relationship for 9 years and then fucked off with £15k. A reasonable court would look at that amount over the years she was there and consider it 'paid in full'. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have sold my house which my dad built & left to me. Had a loan against it which involved my ex g/f 1996-2005(no kids) putting her name on the deeds. Now she wants 50%, I have offered 25%, 5 weeks ago, with no response! I could be homeless & technically penniless by Friday! Very Grrrrr Have you had an experiences that have made you think " I want to fuck her up the arse.................with a cactus" Sorry but you knew what it meant to put her name on the deeds... and obviously had a good reason to at the time which worked in your favour... otherwise why have her name put on. I don't agree with people being ripped-off.... but if someone is legally entitled to something and you didn't plan for it... tough shit. Maybe the OP can confirm or correct me but it does sound awfully like this woman set out to fleece him as soon as she knew she could. Did she make all the usual promises con artists use like 'yes, I will pay it back', or 'I love you so much, do this thing for me'. Then when she'd got the cash, whooosh, like a rat out of an aquaduct, she's gone. The OP says she took £15k 7 years ago. Now I'm not shit hot at maths but even I know that no house in the east midlands 7 years ago was worth a total of £30k even if it was severely run down. How does that entitle her to 50%? If you want to apply the rule of law then she only became a shareholder in the property in 1996, remained in the relationship for 9 years and then fucked off with £15k. A reasonable court would look at that amount over the years she was there and consider it 'paid in full'." I wouldn't like to guess how much she is legally entitled to.... I just know her name is on the deeds, so she owns part of the house. She could have told him she would shit the moon in a bucket for him for all I care.... he agreed for her name to be on the deeds and we all know the implications of doing that. There was no gun against his head, no forgery, just a choice and free will. A bad choice may be, but a choice all the same. If there was no benefit to the OP in having her name on the deeds, why would he do it? Even if the only benefit for him was to try and impress her, he chose to take that benefit at the time.... you roll the dice and takes ya' chance. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't like to guess how much she is legally entitled to.... I just know her name is on the deeds, so she owns part of the house. She could have told him she would shit the moon in a bucket for him for all I care.... he agreed for her name to be on the deeds and we all know the implications of doing that. There was no gun against his head, no forgery, just a choice and free will. A bad choice may be, but a choice all the same. If there was no benefit to the OP in having her name on the deeds, why would he do it? Even if the only benefit for him was to try and impress her, he chose to take that benefit at the time.... you roll the dice and takes ya' chance. " That may be so in the black & white letter of the law, but the law also recognises that people do operate with dubious practices to separate the easily led from their money. When my 1st wife and I divorced we had two options as to splitting our finances (a house worth £200k with a £55k mortage on it). She could either raise the money and buy me out or I could take a percentage of the equity and the remainder of what I was entitled to (if she couldn't raise enough capital to buy me out completely) would have held as a charge against the house in percentage terms that realised whenever she sold up. That allows for inflation and equitable growth but the risk is she could sell in a downturn in the market and I'd have got less. That's how the OPs deal should have been structured. Whatever money was raised as a loan against the property should have been be calculated as a percentage of the full value of the equity in the property and amended in the deeds as a percentage. If it wasn't he was badly advised. Another example of the point I raised earlier regarding whether she has serviced the debt in the 7 years since she left is this: My brother divorced his wife many years ago but never took her name off the mortgage because he'd never have got the full amount on his own wages and he didn't want to move. When he eventually sold up she demanded half, which would have amounted to £40k of the equity. He fought her through the courts and she got £6k because she hadn't contributed a penny to servicing the mortgage since she divorced him and the court considered that as her not protecting her investment. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cheers for your input guys, but she is still pushing for 50%, when she has no need to. Cruel heartless GREEDY bitch. She is making me suffer big time & she doesn't need to if only to satisfy her desire to see me crumble. I honestly don't deserve what she is trying to do to me. Maybe I murdered loads of children in a previous life perhaps? " I know its no consolation but some may do it for the simple reason they can xx | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hitman is probably cheaper than a bloody solicitor lol " Has been thought of many moons ago by many people... | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stick to your guns and see it out to the last penny. Fighting for YOUR right will pay off " Exactly what I'm doing chap, she has a long way to fall. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Post new Message to Thread |
back to top |