Thank you for your question
My name is Clare
I shall do my best to help you but I need some further information first
Was this a Residential or a Commercial property?
Who was living there throughout the period involved?
Was your partner living there?
So why did your then life partner give you half of the home she was living in?
How much did you pay in total - and how much was the property worth in 2006?
Did you also take over the mortgage?
For clarity was that as well as the £200,000?
What happened to the arrears - and how could the loan have been redeemed if they were not paid off?
What evidence do you have that your ex was NOT insolvent at the time of the first transfer?
No I am afraid that they do not have to either provide the evidence nor the list of Creditors.
I am sorry to be blunt but the fact is that there appears to be no reasonable explanation for the transfer of 50% of the property to you for no payment other than the fact that your
ex partner was trying to protect the property from a future bankruptcy.
I fully appreciate that this was not actually the case but the onus is on you to prove that this was not the case.
I do understand that this goes against the usual way of things - but the Trustee in Bankruptcy has wide powers in this area
Given the involvement of a firm of solicitors which has since been struck off you may need to consider carefully the actions of your ex in this matter
Please ask if you need further details
The fact that she went bankrupt within 5 years and this was a transfer without any monetary exchange makes it reversible.
I am not sure what you mean about debts - but anything she owed (other than Child maintenance arrears) at the time of the Bankruptcy is no longer recoverable.
I would have expected her to have been discharged from her bankruptcy prior to her Aunts death so those funds are hers
No it does not - because of the relationship between you and the fact that there is no explanation given for the transaction OTHER than that relationship you are caught by this provision (also at part 2)
but the requirements of this subsection are presumed to be satisfied, unless the contrary is shown, in relation to any transaction at an undervalue which is entered into by an individual with a person who is an associate of his (otherwise than by reason only of being his employee).
That is not relevant to your current position I am afraid
I am sorry but no they do not have to give any of that information at all - and since she did not have the inheritance at the time of the transaction
that is not relevant.
However it is possible that if you can show that there are ample assets to discharge all the debts WITHOUT your property being taken into account
that could be a way forward and that is where your effort should be concentrated
The person who has to account for the money you paid is your ex.
The solicitor has to account to HER for the money - no one else
Actually of she is requesting the information she should receive all of it - after all it is her Bankruptcy.
However frankly there appears t be a great deal she is not being honest with you about so i would not rely on anything she has said
1. If her mortgage was being paid off then she was the client.
Unless of course you instructed them to deal with the transfer and had a formal contract with them.
2. Fo give me I am not sure what your argument is on this. The OR will always look first at any dealing at undervalue with an associated person which happened in the previous five years. They are by definition regarded as suspect. Hence the wording
"but the requirements of this subsection are presumed to be satisfied, unless the contrary is shown, in relation to any transaction at an undervalue which is entered into by an individual with a person who is an associate of his (otherwise than by reason only of being his employee)."
1. Did you have a written agreement with the firm. If so then you can take action against them.
2. Unless you have seen the bankruptcy accounts then you simply do not know what is happening.
May I ask - what information have you received directly from her Trustee in Bankruptcy regarding why the matter has not been concluded
Have YOU raised the issue of the Inheritance with the OR yourself?
Have you asked the PR about the monies received from the Inheritance?
I am not sure what you last question referred to?
Sorry - but the inheritance did not come to her until 2013 is that not correct?
Have you asked the OR about that?
Ah I see.
i am afraid that that is simply not how it works.
It is not backdated in any way.
The relevance of the Inheritance is whether or not there are sufficient assets to repay ALL the Creditors within the Bankruptcy and pay the bill of the Trustee in bankruptcy.
If there is end of matter.
If there is not then the case will go forward.
Given that the Trustee in Bankruptcy does not take this form of action just for fun I can only question the honesty of your ex
1. I think the answer you are looking for is - yes it is too late to challenge it now
2. You I am afraid
Sorry - you will be responsible for your own fees.
a and b. If the money does mean your ex's debts are paid and the case is dropped then you will be responsible for your fees - the OR is NOT liable for them
If the £780K can be used to pay all the debts then the case will not continue as all the debts can be paid from those funds - nothing whatsoever to do with S341.
Yes they can walk away - their job is to liquidate assets and pay the debts - that is all - you have no recourse to any costs order.