Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,216
This is given prominence in today's Irish Times.
I might be missing something but I don't see why it's important. Does it set some sort of precedent?
Without knowing the full divorce settlement, it's hard to see its significance.
They have adult children
Family home worth €232k
Mortgage : €116k
Equity: €116k
He is to buy her out for €70k or 60% of the equity.
The house is rented out - neither of them is living there.
The judge said she considered a sale of the house was appropriate. The “substantial” issue for the court to decide was whether the man, who was paying the mortgage, should be given an option to purchase it. Because the youngest child lived with him, the judge decided he should.
In deciding the value of the woman’s interest in the property, the judge had regard to the fact there was some, although “not extreme”, disparity of income between the parties.
Taking the various factors into account, the judge concluded the man should be entitled to buy out the woman’s interest in the family home for €70,000, about 60 per cent of the value of the property net of mortgage. The court, she said, would make an order transferring the property to him on payment of that sum within a specified time and he would continue to be responsible for mortgage payments.
If he chose not to buy the property, and it was sold on the market, the woman should get two-thirds, and the man one-third, of the net proceeds of sale, she directed.
I might be missing something but I don't see why it's important. Does it set some sort of precedent?
Without knowing the full divorce settlement, it's hard to see its significance.
Man may buy estranged wife’s share of family home for €70,000, judge rules
Couple have no dependent children, man is renting and woman mainly living with new partner, court heard
They have adult children
Family home worth €232k
Mortgage : €116k
Equity: €116k
He is to buy her out for €70k or 60% of the equity.
The house is rented out - neither of them is living there.
The judge said she considered a sale of the house was appropriate. The “substantial” issue for the court to decide was whether the man, who was paying the mortgage, should be given an option to purchase it. Because the youngest child lived with him, the judge decided he should.
In deciding the value of the woman’s interest in the property, the judge had regard to the fact there was some, although “not extreme”, disparity of income between the parties.
Taking the various factors into account, the judge concluded the man should be entitled to buy out the woman’s interest in the family home for €70,000, about 60 per cent of the value of the property net of mortgage. The court, she said, would make an order transferring the property to him on payment of that sum within a specified time and he would continue to be responsible for mortgage payments.
If he chose not to buy the property, and it was sold on the market, the woman should get two-thirds, and the man one-third, of the net proceeds of sale, she directed.