Saw this interesting thread, and thought I would reply. Then, I thought, no, I will try to think what posters will say.
Now, this is an investment forum, and most (if not all) are experienced real estate investers. I thought that most would be highly critical of the original posting, and his reasons for asking for more cash.
Firstly, being together defacto for 6 years is a long time, this was no one night stand, nor a one year 'honeymoon' period in a relationship.
From my understanding, anything that is acquired within a marriage is joint property, even the hubbies car, the wifes pool, and the hubbies business. They are jointly owned, even if both partners 'accept' that the boat, harley and business are dads, and mum has her horses and stables.
Thus, as far as I am concerned, these two people were (effectively) married, acquired assets, and now one (who has joint ownership) wants to get paid. But at what price?
Well, it seems the lady wants to pay little, or under market value. Could this be because she does not want the court to see how much it is sold for? He, on the other hand, wants more money.
References have been made to the amount of deposit, and that he should accept a percentage increase. But, we all know that real estate has a massive gearing potential, which should also be considered. Also, regardless as to whos name is on the title, it should be considered joint property. Thankfully, (or unthankfully, depending upon your viewpoint), they had joint ownership of an asset, which has significantly increased in value, due mainly in part to our real estate boom.
From my understanding, it does not really matter as 'who pays the bills' , and 'who wastes the money', it is more a matter of an asset is owned, that must be settled and dissolved in some way, shape or form. EIther the property must be sold to an unrelated third party, or one must buy the other out, at a mutually aggreeable amount. If an amount cannot be mutually aggreed, and both partners argue over 'independent valuations', then the best valuation is judged by the real estate buying public by flogging off the house by private treaty, or by auction! Simply saying that 15k has been offered, does not mean that his partner is really serious about a fair share of this asset. It may simply mean that she wants to piss him off, get his name off the title, and keep the lions share for herself and her new beau (and why wouldnt she?)
I have always felt that the easiest way to determine if any comment or situation is racist or sexist is simply to reverse the names. If it still sounds fair, then it is, if it sound wrong, then (my) predjudices have been working again.
Rambling on, there is a story of two sons battling over dads piece of land, both wanting more than the other was prepared to give. They went to court. The judge said to one 'draw a line on the map, dividing the land into two pieces. Your brother will choose first, and you will have the remaining half'. Knowing that he would be choosing last, he was FORCED to draw the line fairly, or it would be HE that was screwed over (by himself). In a similar vein, when my sister and I were dishing out ice cream or chocolate, the same rules applied. ie the server did not physicallly choose the bowl. Both of these situations resulted in a fair, even split.
My point? If his partner was asked, 'what is the value of the house, right this instant', she should have to answer. With this answer, it should be up to the original poster to either buy her out, or be bought out, at the value at which his ex fiancee thought was fair.
Obviously though, our emotions are far too entwined, particularly with regards to what was 'done' by each person.
If your relationship was short term, I too, would agree with the majority of the posters in saying you deserve stuff all, and to take the cash and run, and move on. But 6 years is a long time for a relationship, and I think that you are probably entitled to significantly more than this.
Another 2c worth.
Whose name is the finance in? Was it both persons, being jointly and severally legally liable (I would assume so). If so, the 'nothing' that you say that you have done, is significantly more than you have suggested. You would have been legally bound to pay each and every single last cent of the debt, even if your ex died/couldnt work/wouldnt work- ie you would have taken a massive risk.
My other thought. One must also protect not only the asset, but also the equity of the house. Say the house is worth 300k, with a mortgage of 125. Then, there is equity of 175k. Lets say your ex really wants to screw you. She lets you take her to court, and then refinances the loan, maxing out to 290k. This gets shifted to the (new) hubbies loan, the bank sells, and you will divide up a pittance, while you get shafted on the legal bills pending. I would think that your solicitor could place a caveat on the title, or inform the bank in writing, that there is legal argument over the case, and not allow any refinancing until the ugly mess is sorted out. Ditto with cross collaterasation. Now what do you think has happened here? I will bet my balls that this house, which is jointly owned by our couple, has been used as collateral to buy the new house, in which she is living in, with her new beau. Thus, (assuming I am correct, and I am very sure), this mans home has been used to buy another appreciating asset - ie the new home. I think that when all of this unwinds, you will find that the reason that your ex does not want to sell the home, is that firstly, she will have to pay you, and then may have trouble with the banking system and their system of cross collateralisation.
If you have signed a legal document that says you are jointly and severally legally liable, did you know that some banks will use that again and again, for the other persons future debts, even if they are unknown/authorised by you? There were a few cases wher one person (usually spouse/parent) had gone guarrantour, and then additional loans were taken out by the other person, who was then unable to pay. Guess who the banks went after?
Thus, it may be possible, that you are jointly and severally legally liable for half of the house that you own, AND your ex fiancees new house!
Check out the title of the house, it will list the mortgage, then get your solicitor onto the bank to freeze any further loans/securatisations, etc
One thing that really does disturb me, is the lack of data she has been willing to provide you. I would assume that she has thought something along the lines of **** you, you don't deserve a cent, and then has withheld bills, statements, etc, going through the motions on 'her' property. I do not agree with other forumites that she could give you all the bills after a number of years (in which you have been specifically asking for) and expect that you pay them. I think that she has specifically and repeatedly paid them herself, in order to deliberately bolster her claim that it is solely her house, and that you do not deserve anything.
Just my thoughts, and I just have a sneaking suspicion too, that I will too, be shot down in flames.
PS- do keep us informed of how things are going- I get the feeling that this will drag out longer than my postings!
