Judicial Separation Query

snor

Person A and person B have Jud Sep 9 years ago. Judge ruled for family home to be sold when youngest child 18 and split 60:40.

Person A with children in the family home and payed all the mortgage for the past 10 years. Person B went AWOL for the past 8 years - no contribution towards mortgage or no maintenance. Abroad somewhere but no contact at all. Person A tried to make contact through parents etc. with no success - Thought he was dead!!

Youngest child 18 in 2 months time and Person B has now suddenly appeared, alive and well looking for the 40% share of the home.

What is the situation here? Does Person A have to hand over 40% of sale of house despite fact person B has not contributed anything towards home or children for past 10 years? thanks in advance.

ResearchWill

In such a situation it would depend on the original court order, did it say B was to provide money for the child and bills etc., with out sight of court order noone other than original solicitor could answer that question.

snor

Yes, original court order was for person B to pay maintenance of 500 a month and half the mortgage until the mortgage was paid off (was 12 years remaining).
Then once youngest child reached 18, family home to be sold and split 60:40. This is the stage they are at now - so person B has contributed hardly any maintenance or mortgage since the court order yet person A has to give him 40% of the family home? Person B could not be located to enforce court order but has made contact now. Does not seem fair!

ResearchWill

snor wrote: »

Yes, original court order was for person B to pay maintenance of 500 a month and half the mortgage until the mortgage was paid off (was 12 years remaining).
Then once youngest child reached 18, family home to be sold and split 60:40. This is the stage they are at now - so person B has contributed hardly any maintenance or mortgage since the court order yet person A has to give him 40% of the family home? Person B could not be located to enforce court order but has made contact now. Does not seem fair!

The following is not legal advice, but simple logic.

Ok say house currently worth €200,000 that a guess btw. Then the 40% worth €80,000. Ok so person B owes to person A €500 per month plus say €400 a month for share of mortgage. Thats €900 per month or €10,800 per year or over 9 years €97,200. Say B actually paid €17,200 over the 9 years, then person A will say PFO I don't owe any money, if B does not like it B can go to court, I really don't see any Judge giving B any money.

snor

Thanks ResearchWill - Thats what my hope is as it is what seems logical and fair.

So basically person A just goes into the curcuit court where JS was granted, explains situation to the clerk and they can arrange a hearing date for the variation and let the judge decide?

No money for solicitors and just above legal aid limit but person A well able to get point accross so no problem representing themselves and will go to one of the FLAC solicitors to run everything by them also.

Farcear

...and in response to Person A's refusal, Person B just refuses to sign the contract for sale / transfer / Family Home Declaration / Family Law Act Declaration.

No way can it be sold without some sort of court resolution beforehand.

ResearchWill

snor wrote: »

Thanks ResearchWill - Thats what my hope is as it is what seems logical and fair.

So basically person A just goes into the curcuit court where JS was granted, explains situation to the clerk and they can arrange a hearing date for the variation and let the judge decide?

No money for solicitors and just above legal aid limit but person A well able to get point accross so no problem representing themselves and will go to one of the FLAC solicitors to run everything by them also.

I really would not advise doing this by yourself, itis 40% of a house after all. Prob best thing to do is go for divorce, A could arrange with a solicitor to do the matter for a preset price.

krd

ResearchWill wrote: »

I really would not advise doing this by yourself, itis 40% of a house after all. Prob best thing to do is go for divorce, A could arrange with a solicitor to do the matter for a preset price.

Is a divorce going to resolve the issue of the ownership of the property?

What's happening here is someone who hasn't made a contribution to the mortgage is turning up out of the blue and making a grab for something they have no moral entitlement to - even if their claim is perfectly legal, as they say. It's insult upon injury.

How do you give the bum, the bums rush in this instance?

I think a lot of people are going to find themselves in this sticky situation in years to come.

snor

Yes, its the moral v legal debate. Person A has struggled for the past 10 years to work full time, bring up 3 children alone and manage to keep up with mortgage payments. Ideally she would like to hold onto the family home for the children - they are all still living at home and in third level education.

Then person B breezes in having lived the high life for the past 10 years demanding 40% of what legally he feels he is entitled to.

Just does not seem fair.

ResearchWill

krd wrote: »

Is a divorce going to resolve the issue of the ownership of the property?

What's happening here is someone who hasn't made a contribution to the mortgage is turning up out of the blue and making a grab for something they have no moral entitlement to - even if their claim is perfectly legal, as they say. It's insult upon injury.

How do you give the bum, the bums rush in this instance?

I think a lot of people are going to find themselves in this sticky situation in years to come.

All matters are reopened in a divorce, it is open to the court to make any order it wishes. In fact in Irish law even divorce does not finalise matters in that it is possible to petition the court to change orders years later.