# Marriage called off - what are individual entitlements?



## JackBlack (26 Aug 2016)

Maybe each case is individual but I will ask here anyway. 

A friend was due to get married but it got called off. They had just built a house, on her parent's site. She lives in house. He is still contributing to mortgage. Things didn't end well and it's all a mess. Solictors involved. He is looking for X thousand euro. She doesn't want to give in and feels he isn't entitled to anything. Question is, what IS he entitled to?


----------



## RichInSpirit (26 Aug 2016)

JackBlack said:


> . Question is, what IS he entitled to?



If he did the dirt on her at the stag night he doesn't deserve anything but if it's her fault he should at least get what he has already paid in.


----------



## Boyd (27 Aug 2016)

RichInSpirit said:


> If he did the dirt on her at the stag night he doesn't deserve anythings


Pretty sure that's neither here nor there.

"Entitled to" in what regard i think is probably important. Should they sell the house then it surely depends on the deeds and ownership of house, irrespective of who did what.
If they aren't selling and she is expecting a free house (assuming they both contributed to deposit) then I'd be digging in for long haul if I was him, to get back what he put in.
However the solicitors should be able to confirm, they'll be paying then enough to do so!


----------



## Joe_90 (27 Aug 2016)

When did they build the house?

Let's say for arguements sake that the site was valued at €80,000 and they built a 1700 sq ft house that cost €170,000.

So cost €250k, they got a mortgage of €170k,  so she put in €80k at the start and he put in nothing.

So he's a long way behind from the start.  If it's after 10 years it's different.


----------



## mf1 (27 Aug 2016)

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...slative_background_to_broken_engagements.html

Its always a great help to know the financial facts of a case before giving any advice!

You could read anything in to the original post about fault /blame etc., etc., both of which are largely irrelevant in a Court situation!

"They had just built a house, on her parent's site. She lives in house. He is still contributing to mortgage."

You could assume from the OP that the parents gave the two of them the site ( so its not her parents site, its their site, in their names) and they raised a mortgage in their joint names for which they are both responsible.

She continues to live in the house and is still paying his  share of the mortgage. 

So: she buys him out or pays him off or they sell up. 

"She doesn't want to give in and feels he isn't entitled to anything. "

Why?

mf


----------



## huskerdu (27 Aug 2016)

I am not a lawyer, but I agree with mf1. 

It doesn't matter why the marriage was called off ( The tone of the OP suggests that it was his fault) and the courts will rightly laugh at her for thinking that she can take the house as revenge.


----------



## Ihana (27 Aug 2016)

In many cases, the site is gifted to the child, rather than child+spouse for tax reasons.  So the value of the site would be contributed wholly in her name.  

Its hard to know what the fairest thing would be without knowing further particulars.


----------



## JohnJay (27 Aug 2016)

Ihana said:


> In many cases, the site is gifted to the child, rather than child+spouse for tax reasons.  So the value of the site would be contributed wholly in her name.



But if they got a mortgage in both names then the bank would probably insist that the site was in both names before they started building.


----------



## Ihana (27 Aug 2016)

Maybe, as I said its hard to judge without more information.  But its still reasonable to count the site as solely her contribution towards the house.


----------



## Leper (28 Aug 2016)

In any dispute there are two sides to every story. We don't even have one side's story here. All we know is a couple were about to be married and fortunately for both went their separate ways before signing up to life together. 

Now the dispute is about money regarding land and a building - nothing else.  The house remains a monument to a break-up nearing marriage. Common sense is not so common here.  One way or the other the dispute will be settled around a table and the more solicitors involved the less amount either party will receive on "settlement."  Legal disputes such as this are not settled cheaper than two adversaries sitting down and settling.

There is probably a huge tragic love story here too.  Emotions run high and although easy said, it is time for the two involved to settle the argument and move on. Anything else is just fodder for gossip and a huge payout for solicitors.


----------



## trasneoir (28 Aug 2016)

The solicitors' ideal outcome is a never-ending fight. If the two parties can't reach an agreement between themselves, than mediation will be the cheapest way to get a knowledgeable and impartial decision.

Not a lawyer, so what follows is my personal 2c:
He's reasonably entitled to any capital repayment which he made on the mortgage, plus all of his contribution to the deposit, plus the current (ie. 2nd hand) market value of any furnishings he paid for.


----------



## Ihana (28 Aug 2016)

Id agree with you trasneoir.


----------



## mf1 (29 Aug 2016)

"The solicitors' ideal outcome is a never-ending fight."

Really? The ideal outcome from the solicitor's point of view is that the two protagonists would behave like adults and sort their mess out themselves! 

It is a huge time commitment from a solicitor's point of view to try and (a) get the correct version of events from an angry client  and (b) convince that angry client that the only way to look at is is through a Judge's eyes - if the parties cannot resolve matters and prefer instead to let a Judge make that decision for them.

In reality what the angry client wants is a stage to tell their story, to as many people as possible  and be vindicated and their position validated- never mind reality or what a Judge would do. 

I agree that mediation is a possibility but it only works where both sides are willing to engage - not otherwise and see this from OP

"She doesn't want to give in and feels he isn't entitled to anything."


"He's reasonably entitled to any capital repayment which he made on the mortgage, plus all of his contribution to the deposit, plus the current (ie. 2nd hand) market value of any furnishings he paid for."

Without any further input from the OP,  I suspect he owns half the site - a Judge is not going to discount that.

mf


----------



## trasneoir (29 Aug 2016)

mf1 said:


> The ideal outcome from the solicitor's point of view is that the two protagonists would behave like adults and sort their mess out themselves!


Call me cynical, but that doesn't seem like a recipe for many billable hours. Wouldn't their financial interests be better served with a prolonged legal battle?


----------



## Steven Barrett (29 Aug 2016)

trasneoir said:


> Call me cynical, but that doesn't seem like a recipe for many billable hours. Wouldn't their financial interests be better served with a prolonged legal battle?



Believe it or not, but when you charge per hour, you rarely get paid for every hour you spend working on a case. If it is prolonged, you can bill the client for the 1,000 hours you spent on their wrangling. They will not be able to pay you the €250,000+ legal bill you have presented them with. So what happens next? You sue them? Costing you more time and money, knowing that when you win they won't be able to afford to pay anyway.

What usually happens is that you write it off, and take the massive loss of time that could have been spent on clients who will pay you for your time...


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie

oh, as to the OP. She needs to cop on. He's currently paying part of the mortgage on the house. Of course he is entitled to half of what he has paid for. As he is still paying the mortgage, I would guess that he hasn't given up on a reconciliation.


----------



## Dan Murray (29 Aug 2016)

This post is to maintain the off-topic trajectory of this thread - which is fair enuff as when the OP goes AWOL, that's what happens.

Dear old Jean Kerr put it so well....
_I make mistakes, I'll be the second to admit it _
and
_A lawyer is never entirely comfortable with a friendly divorce, anymore than a good mortician wants to finish his job and then have the patient sit up on the table
_
De other I like - just can't remember the source....
_A friend of mine recently divorced his wife after 37 years. He said he was looking for a some-sex relationship._


----------



## mf1 (29 Aug 2016)

trasneoir said:


> Call me cynical, but that doesn't seem like a recipe for many billable hours. Wouldn't their financial interests be better served with a prolonged legal battle?



Well answered by Steven. 

These people probably can't afford prolonged aggravation. Most solicitors would prefer not to deal with them. 

Solicitors tend to get stuck with these clients because they are doing it as a sort of a favour for previous clients. 

Personally, as a practising solicitor, I would try and get the facts and set out the options for a client. The options are usually unpalatable, the client  fights with me because they don't like the options they're being given, and they want an option that suits their narrative.

With any luck ( from my perspective) they'll go off and find someone else who will tell them what they want to hear! Not great for the person in trouble, overall. 

mf


----------



## DirectDevil (31 Aug 2016)

The sensible approach is to resolve this by reference to *equitable* principles.

In other words, if the deal is off both parties should walk away *proportionally* compensated and *proportionally* damaged. I avoid specifically the use of the word *equal* because the financial and or other inputs of the respective parties may not have been equal.

Unfortunately, equity does not get a look in when the wild horses of self righteousness, hurt and anger drive the coach over the cliff of sanity. Ultimately, it may end up with a judge telling the parties how it is going to be resolved and that judgement may be what everyone else has told the warring factions repeatedly and long before trial.

It is best that solicitors have become involved as that is the only chance of a negotiated resolution. Intransigence and a disproportionate sense of entitlement could otherwise damage any hope of a negotiated settlement which is the markedly preferred option in this type of situation.


----------



## thedaddyman (31 Aug 2016)

some very interesting advice here from the Citizens advice bureau. Note especially the section relating to property

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...egal_implications_of_a_broken_engagement.html


----------



## Ravima (10 Sep 2016)

For a clean break, buy him out. If you can get finality at this, it's worth it.

Forget the rights and wrongs of the relationship.

If she wants the house, she must buy him out.

Mind you, if there is a mortgage in joint names, bank might not be agreeable to this.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (8 Feb 2019)

A poster on hear at present may be interested in reading the above posts,


----------

