House repair

Married 25 years, two children 17 (in education), 20 (looking for work). Live in FMH with children ex, lives in supported housing due to a long history of alcoholism. I pay her spousal maintenance of 650/ month, she receives enhanced UC and lower rate PIP. I have agreed in principle to a clean break divorce, splitting house 50:50, with pension sharing on the basis of pension on divorce expert.

There are some issues I am experiencing. House independently valued by surveyor who states as a 4-bed property, value at 650, at 3-bed value at 590, in order to make it a 4-bed it needs retrospective building regulations for the loft conversion and this will cost in the region of 10k. Originally the ex solicitor wrote and told me to organise the necessary repairs, organise the building regulations and take the costs out off the sale of the property. I can't afford to, I did plan on buying her half which I can afford at 590 but not at 650. I then received a without prejudice letter stating that she would settle for a value of 630, and I could sort the building regs out myself. My view is that the value of the property is what it is, not what it might be, in reality if it is sold and mortgage ERP, costs of sale are accounted for there is only a small difference between selling at 650 and transferring to me at 590. Should I just say no to the repairs?

On another note the ex solicitor keeps asking for financial disclosures going back 18 months, I thought it should be no more than 12 unless there is a reason. I suspect the solicitor is on a fishing mission, keeps accusing me of having another source of income and won't accept it when I say I don't. The latest is a threat to seek a court order to ensure I make a disclose the real source of two payments from 'SEPA' which she believes is my extra source of income (just to note, in 18 months I have had two payments from SEPA, both expenses for some work I did in France, I don't charge a fee but they do reimburse any costs I incur, as it is France the expenses are paid in euros and SEPA is just the electronic payment system for euro transactions).

>>Should I just say no to the repairs?

Yes. You should not agree to fund the repairs unless there is a definite agreement in place that you are happy with so that (a) you recover the cost and (b) that the property is valued at a figure which is acceptable to you (assuming that it is not a value that will be determined by an actual sale).

>>The latest is a threat to seek a court order to ensure I make a disclose the real source of two payments from 'SEPA' which she believes is my extra source of income

Since they are obviously aware of these payments it is in your interest to provide full details of where the money comes from with documentary evidence in support. If you do not it will be assumed that you do have a second source of income, that you are hiding something and that you will be presumed to have more money than you actually do.

On a separate subject I hope you have sought and obtained proper legal advice about what terms of settlement would be fair and likely. I say this because your ex's circumstances are such that the receipt of such a large capital sum could well adversely affect her benefits and it is not clear that it is needed to meet her housing needs. You, on the other hand, do provide a home for the children of the family. I do not say that this proposed settkement is definitely wrong but you should certainly get proper legal advice before you agree to it if you have not already done so.

Many thanks for the advice, you raise an interesting issue regarding the terms of the settlement, the ex's solicitor appears to be trying to argue that she is entitled to a larger proportion of assets based on the fact she is unwell and unable to work, just to note this isn't the first time she has spent time in supported accommodation and returned to work after a period of support. I will certainly seek a legal opinion before any settlement is agreed.

You certainly should seek a legal opinion upon any proposed terms of settlement. Your ex's solicitor is working for her not for you so you can expect her solicitor to argue for the maximum he/she thinks can be obtained for her. That isn't necessarily what a court would think was fair. In this case your wife (a) has a long history of alcoholism, (b) she already lives separately in her own supported accommodation and (c) she is in receipt of benefits. What does she need half of the equity FOR? What is she going to do with it? It seems very unlikely she needs it to buy a place to live because she already has a place to live and it seems unlikely she could obtain a mortgage. And, presumably, receiving a large lump sum would also affect her benefits.

It is very important in a situation like this that you take your own independent legal advice rather than rely upon what her solicitor tells you. It seems to me that what her solicitor is asking for by way of a settlement should not be the last word on the subject. I am sure that any solicitor acting for you would have questions to ask of your ex before being able to work out what an appropriate settlement would be in these circumstances. This is not a clear cut case for a fify/fifty split as your ex's solicitor makes out.

The latest tactic of my Ex's solicitor is to make a proposal that is simply unaffordable, it includes paying her back taxes on her income and a 75k capitalised maintenance payment. But what is more difficult for me to understand is she wants a second property sale to be delayed until March 2026, and the transfer of equity for the FMH to be delayed until 60 days after the second home has completed, currently unlikely until mid 2027. Can I just ask the sale to go ahead as soon as a consent order is agreed.

>>Can I just ask the sale to go ahead as soon as a consent order is agreed?<<

No. I think you misunderstand what a consent order is. It is an order made by consent - ie with your agreement as well as hers. If you do not want to agree to a sale in 2027 or whatever then don't agree to it and there cannot be a 'consent' order on those terms. The only things which can go into a consent order are terms which have been agreed. If they are not agreed then there is no consent order. It is as simple as that. It is important you understand this because if, for instance, you signed a consent order and then said, 'Oh, I don't agree to this' afterwards then that would be too late. The hammer falls on the deal as soon as you are agreed on all the terms so take care not to agree to something you object to (unless you realise that you will be held to it if you sign and then change your mind later).