One for the legal eagles - forcing the sale of a jointly owned house

motorbiking said:
Here is a bunch of money that I owe and you are struggling to get from me in exchange for you accepting it as a full and final settlement. Which is binding, because I have acted against my interest on a promise from you to not take it further.
Click to expand...

And yet again, you totally misunderstand the law.
 
motorbiking said:
Looks like MNW found some old text books
Click to expand...

Why old text books in particular. I do still have some of my old law text books from University decades ago, but I haven't used them today. That is why I have been using the internet to get the most recent information.
 
motorbiking said:
righto
Click to expand...

I doubt you had even heard of estoppel before. Give me a brief summary of what you think it means.

It's a bit like your nonsense about "co-ownership trusts" yesterday. I spoon feed you information, and then you pretend you knew it all along.
 
MNW67 said:
I doubt you had even heard of estoppel before. Give me a brief summary of what you think it means.

It's a bit like your nonsense about "co-ownership trusts" yesterday. I spoon feed you information, and then you pretend you knew it all along.
Click to expand...
of course you did.
 
motorbiking said:
of course you did.
Click to expand...

Most jointly owned property isn't held on "co-ownership trusts" like you stated. I just let that slide. It was clearly something you Googled because you had no idea that jointly held property is automatically held on trust.
 
MNW67 said:
Most jointly owned property isn't held on "co-ownership trusts" like you stated. I just let that slide. It was clearly something you Googled because you had no idea that jointly held property is automatically held on trust.
Click to expand...
yet I managed to quote the correct law and the relevant section, all by myself.
 
MNW67 said:
Nothing in there is fresh consideration. That is the whole point.
Click to expand...
No the whole point is you incorrectly thinking that the bank could come after SS having accepted the offer in full.
 
motorbiking said:
No the whole point is you incorrectly thinking that the bank could come after SS having accepted the offer in full.
Click to expand...

Show me the fresh consideration in that letter, required by law, to make it binding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

joe-90
Our own Sub Prime on the way?
Replies
4
Views
814
easybuy
E
The Samaritan
I Don't Want More Debt Forced On Me
3 4 5
Replies
62
Views
8K
big-all
B
Harry Bloomfield
Letting, selling
2 3 4
Replies
52
Views
7K
Diver Fred
D
Harry Bloomfield
Relationship has hit the buffers
2 3 4
Replies
48
Views
5K
Mottie
Mottie
D
Is that so called Garden tax really a labour policy (or future policy)?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
JohnD
JohnD
Back
Top