Hello, welcome to the website. My name isXXXXX can assist you with this.
When you first split, did you agree to let her set up with the savings as a "full and final" settlement of financial issues between you (including the property) - did you discuss this with her?
Now she seeks to ignore that deal?
You should tell her solicitors about the agreement that you had, but it sounds like, in part at least, they're right. If you agreed that what she had now would be deducted from the sale proceedings, it's right to say you expected her to receive something (depending on the amount sold for etc).
So in theory she is entitled to her share, minus what you gave her to set up again with.
She seems entitled to somethin by the sounds of it, but what is another issue. It might be that proportionately you were putting more in than her, and you might say that should be reflected now in any split of the net proceeds.
i.e. if you put in 70% of the mortgage payments, for example, you would say you want 70% back now.
Yes, it would be, and sometimes a "rough justice" has to be done. It's arguable you can factually relate back through, even through with no precision, as to what the contributions might have been.
There is no easy answer though.
This is something that has t be factored into the appropriate percentage split. She will be entitled to growth on the capital investment that has always been there and you will be entitled to an adjustment for your continued payments. It's a bit of a mathmatical headache, but it is possible to caclulate in this way.