Dear Friend,Hello and welcome. Thank you for using Just Answer.
Kindly remain online while I prepare your reply.
You both contributed 110k + 115 = 225k to acquire 926542 valued property. Where did the balance come from ?
She has contributed $110k and she walked out with the same amount. It is YOU who is left out with the property valued much lower and with payment of loans.
Were both of you on the DEED of the property ?
Are BOTH of you on the title of the property ?
How did it passed to you ?
Oh.. I see.
So, technically speaking, you are the sole owner of the property.. Am I right ?
There are two issues involved here. Let me explain. Both of you contributed almost half each. So, theoretically speaking she is responsible for half of the payments that you make and also the loss.
BUT she has put you in very sorry situation. By consent, you have let her go. She took out ALL her money that she contributed and walked out without losing a penny. So, in the eyes of the bank, it is YOU who will remain solely responsible for the payment of the loan. You have lost almost half of it.
Technically speaking the HALF of the amount of that + half of all the payments that you will make in future.
Ok. So you did not consent her taking 110k. Anyways, she had contributed half of it. So was she responsible to pay half of all monthly installments. Your prima facie loss would be half of 110k plus half of all the payments that you will make. She was half owner of the property.
However, from your family law proceedings, you would be able to go after her for entire 110k as that were withdrawn without your consent.
Let me put in more simpler terms.
your loss would be 110k + HALF of all the payments that you will make in future to the bank
This is little different. While answering, I presume you are keeping the property.
However, if you were to sell it at $650,000,
your loss would be $926542-650000 = $276542.
It is YOU who will take this entire loss as the sole owner of the property
She should be made to pay half of $276542 and Half of 110k which she took out.
She should be made to pay 110k + Half of capital loss
Let me tell you all over again. You and she contributed almost equal amount each. Your 115k is still invested so she too should keep her 110 k invested. Also she being 50% partner, make her liable for 50% loss as well
Am I clear ? I am just roughly trying to quantify the loss.
YES, absolutely correct. Now you got it right.
yes, that is right.
yes, that is what she is supposed to make good.
Yes, you should make your stand clear. She should not have been allowed to pass the title to you. By doing that, she has easily walked out of the mess.
sure.. you can certainly do that. To reach me directly, kindly begin your question by prefixing "For Rakhivasavada..........." and you will reach me directly in future.
I am sure this would help.You may please leave a positive rating if this helps as that is the only way we receive credit for assisting you. Alternatively feel absolutely free to revert with more queries if you have.Warm Regards
Thank you so much for your help yesterday. I've tried to put it succinctly in the paragraphs below. Could you please check my logic?
Also, a question that will be asked, why does she need to return the full $110 that she invested?
Finally, and I'm not sure if this is within the rules of JustAnswer so please forgive me if this is inappropriate. A statement outlining the finances in this situation from someone as qualified as yourself will carry more weight in the court than myself. Are you able to be hired to provide such a statement?
Here's what I've drafted this morning. Your comments would be greatly appreciated.
Financial Impact on the Applicant
Hello and welcome again. Thank you for your follow up question.
To begin with, you have calculated perfect. All you have asked for is half of capital loss and the 110k that she took away.
You have also drafted it nicely. There is no need to change anything. Everything is written in plain, easy and lucid manner to understand.
However, I would, at this point, draw your attention to one point that the Respondents may say to counter your claim. Kindly draw attention of your Solicitor. There are chances that the Respondents come up with the argument that it was YOU who let the Respondent walk out of the Title with consent and that YOU are now suppose to bear all the loss arising out of the property.
This is one point that can create little hurdle for you. Sorry to be frank but I have a duty to draw attention to a point that can harm you potentially as letting her walk out of the title was a grave mistake. Sorry for being frank and I apologize if I am offending you with this observation.
Rest so far as claim goes, it is PERFECT and there is no need to change.