A friend's ex-partner has sold the house they bought together and has kept all the proceeds for herself. He put in 10k and she paid the remaining 40k - she sold the house for 90k and has kept the lot. The house was in his name but she had that changed to her name just before the sale went through (he agreed to this but did not suspect that she wanted to keep all the money as she had agreed verbally to give him his original 10k stake back). He has proof that he transferred 10k into her bank account - can he make a claim through the courts to re-coup this money?

What a silly thing for him to do, agreeing to put the house in her name only; now he has to take her to small claims to get his money back. Why did you put this in bankruptcy and debt? Is this what it actually was, a bankruptcy? Because that changes the picture entirely and means a different answer.

Tick

Sorry I wasn't sure what to put it under - it isn't a bankruptcy situation. He knows now that signing the house over to her was a stupid idea but she had harped on so much about it saying it would be easier if it was in her name so she could deal with the sale of it herself and he finally agreed - they were on fairly amicalble terms so he didn't think for a minute she would make off with all the money and not even give him back his original stake - especially knowing that she would leave him virtually penniless - so it was a horrible thing for her to do to him... does he have any recourse or should he just accept the fact that she kept the money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejmkane

he have any recourse or should he just accept the fact that she kept the money?

---

Of course he has recourse, $l0,000 is $l0,000 in my books and a lot of money to part with. He put it in good faith and she reneged (albeit later on, but still reneged). That's all there is to it. He thought the whole situation was amicable and she laughed all the way to the bank.

If he has proof that he put this money in, and wants it back, and he should get it back then he should take her to small claims court and get it back.

I don't know what the situation was between them, but if he thought it was amicable and she screwed him around, she has to be taken to task over it.

Tick

I thought that signing the house over would be the main sticking point - would a court not just consider that he gave the house to her as a "gift" or that he should have known what he was doing so its his own fault she took his money? I only ask because it will cost a few hundred quid to take this to court and there'd be no point if this is the view they might take... what do you think? Is it an open and shut case because of this stupid action on his part?

The way I understand it from your original post is he put $l0,000 in to buy the house with her. Is that not how it was arranged at first. This has nothing to do with what came after. She talked him into signing the house over to her (at that point he should have said yes, but give me back my l0,000.). To my way of thinking we can pre-suppose what a judge will think after reviewing the evidence. Unless there is something that stated he 'gave the house to her as a gift', he did not do that.

Tell him to hire an attorney, seeing as this is in UK, I don't know if you have small claims court (you really have to say which country this occurred in. UK laws are much different from US laws). I am assuming because you mentioned 'quid' it is the UK, right ?

If you have small claims court in the UK, then there is not much money for him to take her to court to recoup his $10,000. If he wants to sit back and have someone do this for him, hire an attorney.

I don't know what kind of evidence he has, re letters, e mails or whatever, it is still a she said/he said situation, but he should try.
Tick