There is no paperwork or anything because, of course, there was no loan.
Basically what''s happened is that we used the money to buy shares, but these were registered in my name only.
She''s now claiming that, because of the registration in my name only, her half should be considered a loan?
For the record she was aware of the registration issue at the time but is now claiming she was assured that it was registered in joint names.
I''m starting to think my position should be that, ok then let''s agree the shares are mine alone as I bought them before the marriage. If she''s unhappy with the fact I spent all of the money in the joint account before we got married, she said raise a separate legal action as it''s not matrimonial property we''re talking about and therefore nothing to do with a separateion agreement?
It was around 4 years ago and obviously there''s been no repayments as this is the first I''ve heard of it.
I''ve still got the shares as they''re unlisted and therefore cannot be traded easily.
I''m trying to say she owns half the shares but she''s claiming she can''t own half as they''re solely in my name, therefore her half was a loan.
It makes no sense to me or my solicitor what they''re trying to do. The last letter even says "it''s clear your wife considered the shares jointly owned" but later says "as they''re solely in your name it''s clear you borrowed half the purchase price"
Very strange deduction if you ask me and I can''t understand how they expect this loan thing to be agreed?
It''s clear that they''re only trying as the shares have fallen in value and there''s no way we''d be talking about loans if they''d gone up.
I''m tired of arguing the same point over and over and wonder if I should just say that she''ll need to raise this loan thing separately as it was before the marriage and therefore isn''t relevant to the divorce.