Hi Clare. It appears I have wasted your time and my money. I was utterly convinced that the original court order stated 'fair and equitable'. However, having reviewed it, the actual wording is 'best price reasonably attainable'. I suspect this is the normal terminology used in these circumstances, which is why you picked up on it.
The FMH is in Spain where I reside. To sell the property now at what might be considered the going rate would result in a loss of more or less 80,000 Euro, so I believe this is not a normal situation. My ex-wife lives with her partner in England and so has her accommodation needs met. If the house is sold for the huge loss described above, my ex-wife will have half the proceeds of the sale, half of my pension income and have somewhere to live. I, on the other hand, will have half the proceeds of the sale, half of my pension income and be homeless. I pointed this out to the judge at the hearing and he just shrugged and said I would have to rent.
All this happened in September 2013 and I cannot describe the level of anger I still feel. My ex-wife deserted me in Spain, subsequently committed adultery and then took every opportunity to rub my nose in the fact that she had found somebody else to look after her. Despite this, I continued to support her financially to the tune of over £20,000 over a four year period, to give her every chance to start a new life.
I could go on. I could talk about dealing with solicitors who dealt in conflict and confrontation, who simply ignored matters that I raised because it didn't suit them to answer them and/or completely misinterpreted other things I said. However, none of this concerns you so I will stop now.
So much for the wonderful and just British legal system!