Select to expand quoteKrusty said..
So as it stands I offered to allow her to continue living there, I'll continue to pay my share of mortgage, she would pay me 38% of an agreed rent, we would split the strata and other fees, I explained that all the mortgage fees and everything would be split between us, she wouldn't have to take out another loan and pay more fees. Her share would remain at 62% mine would be 38% as per legal contract. She replied that I'm a gold digger and that we can speak between solicitors. Talk about kicking the gift horse in the mouth. I wish someone would offer me a deal like mine.
I wonder how different this would be if the property had dropped in value....
A gold digger? Did you cruise around looking for a woman of means to hook up with to score a free house? Way to go!
Don't worry too much. From what I can see you have no need for a solicitor. In order to compel you to sell her your share it looks like they have to get it before the Supreme Court. I don't know how expensive that is, but even if they get you to sell them your share (at market value), you don't need to pay for the lawyers fees. You aren't in the wrong. Worst case it looks like you will be better off and that's even if she somehow convinces them to do it.
Is there someway to work out what the value of the deposit, after interest, so that you can effectively build your equity up so that you are even based on your shares? I.e. you pay more of the mortgage so that your share of the deposit gets up to 38%?
Don't get too emotional about this. If she broke up with you after 2 weeks of getting the place, she would have been thinking about it before then, so its not like she didn't expect something out of it.
The only winner in this is the government getting another lot of stamp duty .
Let her get stung buy it .
Sell asap & put it behind you .
I went through this stuff once .
I paid for house 100% .
And one month in she wanted out .
I put her name on morgate because we were a couple for 10 yrs
It didnt matter I didnt have to buy her out I still had to refinance into just my name & that cost another lot of stamp duty .
And that was expensive.
So I've been there & thats my advice .
I doubt anybody giving any advice on here has the benift of experience like I have.
At least you should be able to get your deposit back .
So you can walk out a bit wiser & not out of pocket its a win as good as it will get in these situations.
Yes I think I'm going to go down the path of her buying me out, I offered her options told her to think about it but I know what the answer will be. The only real pain I think I'm going to get out of it is losing my first home owners concession. But I'll just have to look at that as an expensive life lesson.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
I can't offer legal advice, but for psychological reasons that perhaps outweigh the sum of financial and legal reasons, I'd cut my losses and take the 6% profit.
Hit the nail on the head.
Select to expand quoteKrusty said..
Yes I think I'm going to go down the path of her buying me out, I offered her options told her to think about it but I know what the answer will be. The only real pain I think I'm going to get out of it is losing my first home owners concession. But I'll just have to look at that as an expensive life lesson.
Mate............... If you get out without having to pay out more money than you already have.
You're in front!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Select to expand quoteKrusty said..
Yes I think I'm going to go down the path of her buying me out, I offered her options told her to think about it but I know what the answer will be. The only real pain I think I'm going to get out of it is losing my first home owners concession. But I'll just have to look at that as an expensive life lesson.
You are much more accommodating than I am. I guess it depends on whether you want to buy another property in the future. That stamp duty you saved was probably worth $10k. Your ex is going to find out exactly, because she will need to pay that same amount when she transfers the 38% into her name as well.
You will need to pay all of the stamp duty when/if you buy another place.
She will see it as nothing as she wouldn't have had to pay any stamp duty if she had bought the place by herself. You on the other hand will have to next time, so I would argue its worth compensating you for.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Krusty said..
Yes I think I'm going to go down the path of her buying me out, I offered her options told her to think about it but I know what the answer will be. The only real pain I think I'm going to get out of it is losing my first home owners concession. But I'll just have to look at that as an expensive life lesson.
You are much more accommodating than I am. I guess it depends on whether you want to buy another property in the future. That stamp duty you saved was probably worth $10k. Your ex is going to find out exactly, because she will need to pay that same amount when she transfers the 38% into her name as well.
You will need to pay all of the stamp duty when/if you buy another place.
She will see it as nothing as she wouldn't have had to pay any stamp duty if she had bought the place by herself. You on the other hand will have to next time, so I would argue its worth compensating you for.
Yep your right. I've just sent off an email with all of the options I'm open to and one of which is asking for a reimbursement of my stamp duty concession to it's maximum value (approx 28k) and a return of all of my financial contributions, I doubt she will agree but it leaves me in a good position to negotiate.
ive also stated I'm willing to keep the current contract as is and have a formal agreement written up, seems I'm being very amicable but she sees it as greed.
Select to expand quotebusterwa said..
Bunnings?
There is a significant difference between joint tenants and tenants in common. Your choice of tools wouldn't help in tenants in common.
Apparently they even disallow 'murder' in 'joint-tenants' when it comes to inheriting your ex-partners share. (ex, because they are not anymore, not because you divorced.)
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..busterwa said..
Bunnings?
There is a significant difference between joint tenants and tenants in common. Your choice of tools wouldn't help in tenants in common.
Apparently they even disallow 'murder' in 'joint-tenants' when it comes to inheriting your ex-partners share. (ex, because they are not anymore, not because you divorced.)
Yep, property goes to the next of kin. But it would still reduce the mental stress so I guess it's almost win win.
Select to expand quoteKrusty said..FormulaNova said..Krusty said..
Yes I think I'm going to go down the path of her buying me out, I offered her options told her to think about it but I know what the answer will be. The only real pain I think I'm going to get out of it is losing my first home owners concession. But I'll just have to look at that as an expensive life lesson.
You are much more accommodating than I am. I guess it depends on whether you want to buy another property in the future. That stamp duty you saved was probably worth $10k. Your ex is going to find out exactly, because she will need to pay that same amount when she transfers the 38% into her name as well.
You will need to pay all of the stamp duty when/if you buy another place.
She will see it as nothing as she wouldn't have had to pay any stamp duty if she had bought the place by herself. You on the other hand will have to next time, so I would argue its worth compensating you for.
Yep your right. I've just sent off an email with all of the options I'm open to and one of which is asking for a reimbursement of my stamp duty concession to it's maximum value (approx 28k) and a return of all of my financial contributions, I doubt she will agree but it leaves me in a good position to negotiate.
ive also stated I'm willing to keep the current contract as is and have a formal agreement written up, seems I'm being very amicable but she sees it as greed.
This must be why divorces are so much fun for lawyers. The wife will want what she thinks she deserves and what her friends tell her she deserves. I am sure the lawyer would be happy to encourage this behaviour sometimes.
In your case, my non-lawyer, nothing involved opinion, is that the best she could hope for is to go to the Supreme Court to force you to sell your share to her, at which point she has to pay you your share of the agreement based on a current valuation from a registered valuer. Then she has to turn around and pay the NSW government the stamp duty on your share of the property valuation.
Before she gets to that stage, she needs to engage and pay for a lawyer, get them to agree with her and then get the Supreme Court to agree with her. It sounds expensive to me, and she can't get any of these costs back from you.
I think economically the best solution for both of you is to keep the agreement as it is and accept that you own shares in the place and that if one of you wants to occupy the place they need to pay the other their percentage of the market rent. This avoids any extra costs to her and no extra costs to you.
It would make sense to separate the mortgages if possible to avoid any issues there. That way you or she won't be worried about missed payments or someone not paying their share. This may be harder than it seems as banks may not want to provide separate mortgages for you.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Krusty said..FormulaNova said..Krusty said..
Yes I think I'm going to go down the path of her buying me out, I offered her options told her to think about it but I know what the answer will be. The only real pain I think I'm going to get out of it is losing my first home owners concession. But I'll just have to look at that as an expensive life lesson.
You are much more accommodating than I am. I guess it depends on whether you want to buy another property in the future. That stamp duty you saved was probably worth $10k. Your ex is going to find out exactly, because she will need to pay that same amount when she transfers the 38% into her name as well.
You will need to pay all of the stamp duty when/if you buy another place.
She will see it as nothing as she wouldn't have had to pay any stamp duty if she had bought the place by herself. You on the other hand will have to next time, so I would argue its worth compensating you for.
Yep your right. I've just sent off an email with all of the options I'm open to and one of which is asking for a reimbursement of my stamp duty concession to it's maximum value (approx 28k) and a return of all of my financial contributions, I doubt she will agree but it leaves me in a good position to negotiate.
ive also stated I'm willing to keep the current contract as is and have a formal agreement written up, seems I'm being very amicable but she sees it as greed.
This must be why divorces are so much fun for lawyers. The wife will want what she thinks she deserves and what her friends tell her she deserves. I am sure the lawyer would be happy to encourage this behaviour sometimes.
In your case, my non-lawyer, nothing involved opinion, is that the best she could hope for is to go to the Supreme Court to force you to sell your share to her, at which point she has to pay you your share of the agreement based on a current valuation from a registered valuer. Then she has to turn around and pay the NSW government the stamp duty on your share of the property valuation.
Before she gets to that stage, she needs to engage and pay for a lawyer, get them to agree with her and then get the Supreme Court to agree with her. It sounds expensive to me, and she can't get any of these costs back from you.
I think economically the best solution for both of you is to keep the agreement as it is and accept that you own shares in the place and that if one of you wants to occupy the place they need to pay the other their percentage of the market rent. This avoids any extra costs to her and no extra costs to you.
It would make sense to separate the mortgages if possible to avoid any issues there. That way you or she won't be worried about missed payments or someone not paying their share. This may be harder than it seems as banks may not want to provide separate mortgages for you.
Thats exactly what I want, I'm just after her to accept that I own 38% and leave it at that, no extra finance costs, all on going fees get split mortgage repayments are split. But unfortunately she's selfish and wants to have it all to herself, even after agreeing to a contract. The property also has less than 80k of equity so when she refinances it, pays me out she's going to be left in the red. Her ideas just boggle me. 
I dont know if this helps but.
When I went through similar it was very frustrating.
But since then I've moved on meet my wife had four absolutely fantastic kids while all the ex did is f##k up her life & those around her .
Im light years ahead without that in my life .
I think you will be able to look back & feel the same .
Its only money as they say & your future peace of mind is priceless.
I wish you the best of luck .
"Thats exactly what I want, I'm just after her to accept that I own 38% and leave it at that, no extra finance costs, all on going fees get split mortgage repayments are split. But unfortunately she's selfish and wants to have it all to herself, even after agreeing to a contract. The property also has less than 80k of equity so when she refinances it, pays me out she's going to be left in the red. Her ideas just boggle me."
In the general theme of looking to deescalate this and avoid lawyers, perhaps thinking of her as wanting a clean break rather than being selfish is more useful. And as a principle, that's (ie: a clean break) is a good idea. Who wants your ex as a landlord?
I suspect the real problem comes from the external costs of the exercise (stamp duty concession and other original purchase costs). She sees no value in paying you for them any more than you don't want to lose the benefit of what you paid for (or didn't, in the case of the concession). But never lose sight of the fact that lawyers arguing about how to settle the matter will cost you a lot more than those costs.
My personal counsel is that your life will be happier if you set a low bar on what you'll accept and walk away.
She wants a home,
you want a home.
Just get some flowers and say, that you don't care about the house,
just love her, and can't live without...
Get some bubbly, make few kids and you both forget about the whole thing in years to come.
( if you got any difficulty with the plan above- then maybe somebody from our SB could help ( to make few kids for you))
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
She wants a home,
you want a home.
Just get some flowers and say, that you don't care about the house,
just love her, and can't live without...
Get some bubbly, make few kids and you both forget about the whole thing in years to come.
( if you got any difficulty with the plan above- then maybe somebody from our SB could help ( to make few kids for you))
What else have you got growing on that property besides lantana? I think burning it off was not a good idea!
Select to expand quoteTamble said..
...
But never lose sight of the fact that lawyers arguing about how to settle the matter will cost you a lot more than those costs.
...
My personal counsel is that your life will be happier if you set a low bar on what you'll accept and walk away.
Why does everyone assume this is a case of lawyers arguing it out?
As far as I can see its not a divorce or separation, and there are no other discussions about assets or income.
It becomes a situation where two people have bought a property together. It could be two guys, two friends, two businesses. They have their share of a property in a framework where you have rules on what you can and can't do and who owns what. In this case its hard to make the other partner sell to you. Normally they don't have to, and having a lawyer tell you you must is not enough.
As a general idea its important to understand how these arrangements work before you get into them. Its no use having your buddy decide that he wants to sell up after a month because he met someone and you want to keep the investment for at least a few years.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
She wants a home,
you want a home.
Just get some flowers and say, that you don't care about the house,
just love her, and can't live without...
Get some bubbly, make few kids and you both forget about the whole thing in years to come.
( if you got any difficulty with the plan above- then maybe somebody from our SB could help ( to make few kids for you))
good humour thanx
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Why does everyone assume this is a case of lawyers arguing it out?
As far as I can see its not a divorce or separation, and there are no other discussions about assets or income.
Agree!
This is a tenants in common dispute. Fixed legal entitlement.
There are comments in this thread about the female being favoured in court, "take you to the cleaners" sort of stuff. None of this is applicable.
Select to expand quoteTamble said..
"Thats exactly what I want, I'm just after her to accept that I own 38% and leave it at that, no extra finance costs, all on going fees get split mortgage repayments are split. But unfortunately she's selfish and wants to have it all to herself, even after agreeing to a contract. The property also has less than 80k of equity so when she refinances it, pays me out she's going to be left in the red. Her ideas just boggle me."
In the general theme of looking to deescalate this and avoid lawyers, perhaps thinking of her as wanting a clean break rather than being selfish is more useful. And as a principle, that's (ie: a clean break) is a good idea. Who wants your ex as a landlord?
I suspect the real problem comes from the external costs of the exercise (stamp duty concession and other original purchase costs). She sees no value in paying you for them any more than you don't want to lose the benefit of what you paid for (or didn't, in the case of the concession). But never lose sight of the fact that lawyers arguing about how to settle the matter will cost you a lot more than those costs.
My personal counsel is that your life will be happier if you set a low bar on what you'll accept and walk away.
Yep your 100% correct on all of the above, I want the clean break, but I also feel cheated by the loss of my concessions to get into a home. I know there's options to move forward and prosper but right now I'm trying to make the best out of this, my emotional attachment to the place is a distant memory and I'm only looking at it as a business now.
I believe she's now actually got legal advice because she's apologised for the way she's been dealing with this, I think the solicitor must have given her the facts and knocked her right off her pedestal.
Not advice, more of a question. If you both want to buy the place can you put it up for auction?
You can both bid on it and the highest bidder wins (and pays a proportion of the final bid to the other party).
That might sort out any BS valuations?
Just an idea. All the best...
Select to expand quotebazz61 said..Macroscien said..
She wants a home,
you want a home.
Just get some flowers and say, that you don't care about the house,
just love her, and can't live without...
Get some bubbly, make few kids and you both forget about the whole thing in years to come.
( if you got any difficulty with the plan above- then maybe somebody from our SB could help ( to make few kids for you))
good humour thanx
I am serious.
Instead of dilemma how to resolve the problem, isn't it easier to avoid in the first place?
It is obvious to me that guy like the girl and vice verse, they could take care of themselves and the home too.
Most likely they both rushed to decision and may only regret later.
Every couple had LOW and DOWNS.
There is no guarantee that the next girl will be any better, most likely the opposite.
Let's give them a chance, don't rush.
Besides any couple/marriage, consul/ advisory will be free of charge, but property lawyer costs a fortune.
Next is a practical approach.
Windsurfing gear needs a lot of space and safe place to storge. If the guy was kiter, that a different story.
Could pack everything into a backpack and live under a tree.
So who`s name is on the title deed and mortgage? Does it state the shared percentage? "
Select to expand quotebusterwa said..
So who`s name is on the title deed and mortgage? Does it state the shared percentage? "
Mortgage is irrelevant.
Title deed should show something like:
Krusty as to 38% share
Krusty's Ex as to 62% share
As Tenants in Common
If not, and it's actually joint tenancy:
Krusty &
Krusty's Ex
As Joint Tenants
Then "everyone owns the property together". That is, all owners share the same rights in the property, as a whole.
Both our names are on the mortgage and the deed is as described above.
The latest news on this is I offered to give her enough cash to bring shares to a 50/50 split, this is to negate her feelings of being ripped of in a sale in the short term. I offered her to remain at the property rent free until it becomes eligible to be rented say 5 months time.
I also offered that she buy me out for my contributions and then an additional about 10k to compensate for loss of stamp duty concession and break of contract.
She rejected my offer and came back with, an offer for all my financial contributions and a contract stating that she would pay stamp duty to a value of 24k for any property I buy in the future. I said wow, she is dumb. Sounds great on paper but she doesn't honour legal contracts, flips when circumstances change and couldn't possibly have the cash to pay me any way. I'd say she doesn't think I'll buy again or has no intention of paying.
My generosity is wearing thin.
Select to expand quoteKrusty said..
Both our names are on the mortgage and the deed is as described above.
The latest news on this is I offered to give her enough cash to bring shares to a 50/50 split, this is to negate her feelings of being ripped of in a sale in the short term. I offered her to remain at the property rent free until it becomes eligible to be rented say 5 months time.
I also offered that she buy me out for my contributions and then an additional about 10k to compensate for loss of stamp duty concession and break of contract.
She rejected my offer and came back with, an offer for all my financial contributions and a contract stating that she would pay stamp duty to a value of 24k for any property I buy in the future. I said wow, she is dumb. Sounds great on paper but she doesn't honour legal contracts, flips when circumstances change and couldn't possibly have the cash to pay me any way. I'd say she doesn't think I'll buy again or has no intention of paying.
My generosity is wearing thin.
Sounds fun 
Just remember, you don't actually need to do anything if it suits you.
Maybe you can turn her offer around and offer to pay her for all her financial contributions to date and offer the same contract offering to pay up to 24k stamp duty in the future?
I suspect she wouldn't go for that and she would be insulted even though its the same she is offering you.
I agree with your guess too. If she won't pay you for your contributions and 10k, but then offers instead to pay your contributions plus up to 24k, she doesn't expect you to buy something and/or she doesn't expect to have to honor it.
I must be an unreasonable person. One of my family members was in a situation where her and her friend convinced the third person in the deal to sell their share to the friend, just because they had renovated the property and he now wanted to own it all and live in it. I would have just said no.
Similarly, the neighbours grandson bought a property with a few mates. Six months later one of the guys gets engaged and wants the rest to sell, so they do. Again, I would have said no, as its meant to be a long term investment, not just an option.
That said, everyone has their own financial level of risk, and its only with the benefit of hindsight that some of these deals sound like they missed out. To counter this, I have owned a house for ten years that has only now reached a point where the rent can come close to covering the cost of the mortgage. I am not sure I would do it again if I had the choice over again.
Select to expand quotenovetti said..FormulaNova said..novetti said..
The courts are rigged towards women in any property dispute. Period.
Are you sure about this?
Where do you live? In the Middle East?
In Australia family courts is happening everyday. Fact. Kids or no kids involved women are looked after by the penguins.
He will need a lawyer if the other party escalates but only until then an amicable agreement would be way more profitable for both.
If she has her own entourage of advisers (previously divorced women friends/colleagues) lawyers will be keen on the next trip to Monaco to sip Champagne...
novetti; that's not "fact", that's absolute bull****, along with the rest of your post....i'm lawyer and the closest i get to a holiday sipping champagne at monaco is eating a monaco bar ice cream while drinking a stubbie on a camping trip up the beach.
krusty; stop being such a tightarse and go get an hour's legal advice so you know what your real options are and how this will play out. you're already digging yourself a big legal hole by making offers to her. these will come back to bite you if this ends up in court. or if you really are too tight then go see a community legal service for a free 20 minutes' advice. a good lawyer will help you settle this by consent with a minimum of cost. as a start - if you settle via consent orders then stamp duty is not payable.
