Hi triggerbump
I am glad that you are more upbeat now. Use the advice you have been given and keep 'fighting' all is not lost.
We are all behind you. So get on the phone in the morning and let us all know how it goes.
Good luck and best wishes, fingers crossed, well everything crossed.
zara

It's from section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Glad to have been of some help.

By the way there's a typo in the quotation, revocable disposition should read reviewable disposition.

A decision is reviewable unless it was made to a bona fide buyer who had no reason to be aware of the underlying intentions.

Mike

Excellent. I just found that statute and it looks as thought that may be our saving grace! I think it's very obvious that he has done this deliberately to avoid paying me my share of the house. He signed the deed of trust 14 days before the marriage, and produced the deed 3 years and 2 weeks later. He told his solicitor that he had completley forgotten about the deed until today. Very unbelieveable considering we've been seperated and dealing with solicitors for 3 months.

I really hope the court will see this for what it is, and screw him for it!

Triggerbump wrote:
I really hope the court will see this for what it is, and screw him for it!

Agreed. But you are still within the short term marriage clause; although the needs of you and the children will be addressed - the Short Term marriage clause may argue that he retains ownership; because he brought it in to the marraige; he may retain ownership (or his parents) however; you might hope to retain the right to live there until the kids older?

OK well I spooke to my solicitor today and he thinks that the disposing of assets statue won't stand up because it's meant for people who try and sell things off once divorce is on the cards. As this deed of transfer was signed before we even got married, that statute won't help us.

A friend is making enquiries with a property/trust lawyer he works with with regard to the money I have paid as a tenant etc, to see if we get anywhere with that.

My only other hope is that we can prove that the deed of trust is fraudulent, which is a possibility given that it only came to light yesterday and the divorce has been on the cards for 3 months. Trouble is I don't honestly know if it is fraudulent, because I can wholly believe that my ex and his parents did this before we were even married. And if it has been back-dated, I don't see how we'll ever prove it.

the fact that my in laws are on the deed complicates matters becuase the courts do not have the powers to sign the house over to me, as they may do in a normal divorce case. there's also the short marriage issues to contend with.

Even if this deed of trust hadn't come to light, then there's a good chance in court that we woudl be ordered just to sell the house and split the equity, and my very best case scenario would be to get a third, which less costs of sale is about £10k. That is what I'm asking for anyway given that I spent about £7k on home improvements, and have contributed towards the mortgage for 4 years.

I think that given the risks that my very best case in court (without the deed of trust) is about a £10k settlment, if ex is prepared to pay me this now i'll just take the money and move on. There's also the risk in court that I'll get nothing. It could go either way but I don't really want this battle to go on because I don't want the children to remember it. They're going through enough already and my eldest (18 months) is already really unsettled with this latest development and I'm not going to put him through any more upset than he's already had.

If ex wants to do this then he can. It's on his conscience but really I think the best thing for my boys is for us just to take our £10k (if we get it) and make a fresh start somewhere else.

God sometimes I hate being the bigger person. that said, I will be having one hell of a house-leaving party and will be painting the entire place an awful shade of pink before I leave

Hi there

If there is a deed of trust he has signed over the beneficial interests in the property not the legal interest. Beneficial interests can be altered using trust law principles of constructive trust, resulting trust and estoppal. You have an additional avenue under the very old Married Womens Propery Act. What would happen is that you make a claim under all four actions and the judge decides what is what. The best is constructive trust, as this usually realises 50%. The others cant guarentee 50%, but rather take into account the whole course of dealing between the parties.

All these areas come under the group heading of equity and trust law. The maxim relating to this whole area is that he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands....not quite sure in the circs that your husband and relatives could claim such a thing.

Your marriage will be good evidence that you should have shared the house. You then have to show that you acted to yor detriment due to the belief that you had a share in the house, the mortgage payments and the other monies spent again being good evidence of this.

What you need is someone who practices this area - usually it is a family lawyer, as these are the principles we use for cohabittees - but make sure it is someone good as trust actions are often messed up by people dabbling in things they dont properly understand.

Dont worry...your course of action is just different, that is all, not gone completely. Oh and btw - costs follow the event in this area, so you are likely to get a costs order to pay your costs - and if there are anyother assets, you can still also go down the AR route - and if you do make sure you make a claim for litigation conduct.

If you need to know more, call Rachel at my office for a free half hour - she understands this stuff far more than I do!

Amanda

Triggerbump,

Divorce lawyer has given you excellent advice.

From what you have said you would be able to rely on a constructive trust.

I have done some research, but frankly without the wording of the Trust Deed and Land Registry details I cannot go any further. There are too many variables.

Please have a look at Sec 30 of the Family Law Act 1996:

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&BrowseLetter=F&NavFrom=1&parentActiveTextDocId=1985123&ActiveTextDocId=1985172&filesize=9852

and see where your situation places you.

Other possibilities not mentioned by DL are the Human Rights Act, The Supreme Court Act and The Housing Act - of doubtful use to be honest.

I agree with your solicitor, the Deed of Trust drawn up before the marriage was not meant to be covered by Sec 37 of the Marital cause Act however a clever barrister might argue that was in effect a unilateral pre-nuptial agreement. That was in effect its intent and should be treated as such.

Whatever the Law says, posession is nine tenths of it - DO NOT LEAVE until you are ready.

Good luck,

YA