Divorce settlement question

M

Mvu

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2015
Messages
737
Reaction score
109
Location
Cape Town
Hi all

I will try to be as brief as possible so I can get to the point...

So my uncle recently got divorced and in the settlement he gets his house, her ex wife's house and she gets 80% of his pension.

After all the ups and downs the settlement was finally signed by both parties. Now issue is it recently came up that her house is not on her name, its still on the person who sold it hers name. Now after all the documents were signed and approved the ex wife sold the house to someone else. (The person recently got a RAF payment so they paid cash). Now the person who bought the house from the ex wife is moving in.

As per my uncle the previous owner and ex wife need to sign the offer to purchase first before it can be his house.

Any way we can fight this legally? Lawyers want more money for them to stop the processing of the pension fund. Any advice would be greatly appreciated

Thank you.
 
So much for brief as possible when there are so many parties and timelines involved that none of it makes sense.

How can she have sold it to someone else if it wasn’t hers to start with as it wasn’t transferred? How could that even be possible in the first place.

Sounds like bullshit or the explanation just doesn’t make sense.

Also how could a divorce court ever have settled in this manner without confirming ownership? It all sounds like bullshit.
 
Mvu said:
Hi all

I will try to be as brief as possible so I can get to the point...

So my uncle recently got divorced and in the settlement he gets his house, her ex wife's house and she gets 80% of his pension.

After all the ups and downs the settlement was finally signed by both parties. Now issue is it recently came up that her house is not on her name, its still on the person who sold it hers name. Now after all the documents were signed and approved the ex wife sold the house to someone else. (The person recently got a RAF payment so they paid cash). Now the person who bought the house from the ex wife is moving in.

As per my uncle the previous owner and ex wife need to sign the offer to purchase first before it can be his house.

Any way we can fight this legally? Lawyers want more money for them to stop the processing of the pension fund. Any advice would be greatly appreciated

Thank you.
Click to expand...
If the 80% pension covers it then just kick her off that part of the settlement.
 
SauRoNZA said:
So much for brief as possible when there are so many parties and timelines involved that none of it makes sense.

How can she have sold it to someone else if it wasn’t hers to start with as it wasn’t transferred? How could that even be possible in the first place.

Sounds like bullshit or the explanation just doesn’t make sense.

Also how could a divorce court ever have settled in this manner without confirming ownership? It all sounds like bullshit.
Click to expand...
I think she had already planned this before the divorce to avoid losing the house, she probably changed ownership to someone else before the divorce and then changed it back after. she is playing the game.
 
200.gif

Go visit a divorce lawyer because nobody here would/should give you legal advice
 
SauRoNZA said:
So much for brief as possible when there are so many parties and timelines involved that none of it makes sense.

How can she have sold it to someone else if it wasn’t hers to start with as it wasn’t transferred? How could that even be possible in the first place.

Sounds like bullshit or the explanation just doesn’t make sense.

Also how could a divorce court ever have settled in this manner without confirming ownership? It all sounds like bullshit.
Click to expand...
It's in khayelitsha my broer, anything is possible there. Apparently the ex wife and previous owner had a a signed note/agreement stating that house is being sold.
 
epah said:
I think she had already planned this before the divorce to avoid losing the house, she probably changed ownership to someone else before the divorce and then changed it back after. she is playing the game.
Click to expand...
It was never transferred from the previous owners name to the ex wife's name. Not sure why. Maybe because rdp house or she didn't have the registration money
 
Mvu said:
It was never transferred from the previous owners name to the ex wife's name. Not sure why. Maybe because rdp house or she didn't have the registration money
Click to expand...

Is it a title deed property or a RDP house? That may clear some confusion

It's common that people "sell" those houses even though it doesn't belong to them.
 
Sounds like a variation of a tripartite agreement which, if so, is legal.

OTOH, depending upon the dates when the various contracts (divorce agreement & sale of the house) were signed etc., could be used to establish that the ex-wife was guilty of knowingly entering into a fraudulent contract with either the uncle or the new purchaser.
 
Is it an actual house with deed on someone's name. Or is it basically a illegal structure?

If there is a deed. And the rightfully owner can be contacted and you have all the subsequent paperwork in order. Maybe. But that's a start. Get a deed search. Then go see an attorney.
 
rietrot said:
Is it an actual house with deed on someone's name. Or is it basically a illegal structure?

If there is a deed. And the rightfully owner can be contacted and you have all the subsequent paperwork in order. Maybe. But that's a start. Get a deed search. Then go see an attorney.
Click to expand...
What i understand is that it is still on the previous owner's name and not on the ex wife's name. And it is an actual house. Not sure about rdp or not. What i heard from my uncle is that he must get the previous owner and ex wife to sign the OTP.
 
rrh said:
Sounds like a variation of a tripartite agreement which, if so, is legal.

OTOH, depending upon the dates when the various contracts (divorce agreement & sale of the house) were signed etc., could be used to establish that the ex-wife was guilty of knowingly entering into a fraudulent contract with either the uncle or the new purchaser.
Click to expand...
Agreement was some time last month and the house was sold last week.
 
rietrot said:
Is it an actual house with deed on someone's name. Or is it basically a illegal structure?

If there is a deed. And the rightfully owner can be contacted and you have all the subsequent paperwork in order. Maybe. But that's a start. Get a deed search. Then go see an attorney.
Click to expand...
This.
If there is an actual house with a title deed, then it sounds like she mislead the courts into believing that she was in a position that she wasn't. Get the attorney to sue for the value of the home from her, as well as a punitive costs order. If she cannot pay, then seek a reasonable equivalent amount that gets deducted from the pension, as of the date of the order.

Edit: make sure that it is in full and final settlement, so that she cannot claim any compensation later when the pension kicks in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mvu
MidnightZA said:
Is it a title deed property or a RDP house? That may clear some confusion

It's common that people "sell" those houses even though it doesn't belong to them.
Click to expand...
It is on the previous owner's name so I think it's not RDP. And I doubt court would allow sale of rdp house? This whole thing is just confusing. When I marry, if I do marry, it will definitely be out of community
 
RonSwanson said:
This.
If there is an actual house with a title deed, then it sounds like she mislead the courts into believing that she was in a position that she wasn't. Get the attorney to sue for the value of the home from her, as well as a punitive costs order. If she cannot pay, then seek a reasonable equivalent amount that gets deducted from the pension, as of the date of the order.

Edit: make sure that it is in full and final settlement, so that she cannot claim any compensation later when the pension kicks in.
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
Interesting coincidence...
Busy preparing for my exam on Friday... The quoted problem is part of the content... (see attachment)

In my non-legal opinion, if the settlement was made part of the court order, the person can be held in contempt of court and obviously there is the possibility to sue
a7eb5fef9f0da548e35c3886c4c15110.jpg
 
Caldo said:
Interesting coincidence...
Busy preparing for my exam on Friday... The quoted problem is part of the content... (see attachment)

In my non-legal opinion, if the settlement was made part of the court order, the person can be held in contempt of court and obviously there is the possibility to sue
a7eb5fef9f0da548e35c3886c4c15110.jpg
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X