Forced to sell for less that market value?

My STBX has demanded that we sell our home for around 15% less than the market value to ensure a "quick sale"

There''s houses already up in the street but they''re taking ages to sell (1-2 years) but that''s just the way the market is just now!

A few questions then:

1) Can I be forced to set a price way below the market value just to get to sold and her name off the mortgage?

2) Who determines the price it should be listed at? Surely if 2 or 3 estate agents say X then it''s reasonable of me to insist upon that?

3) Is there a time factor involved? I.e. X for 1 year, X-10% for a year etc?



Dunno what the hell she''s playing at but maybe I should just say "fine, if you want your name off it that badlye just transfer your share to me!"

1) If your wife goes to court a sale can be ordered and enforced.

2) When there is no agreement about the value a jointly instructed (and paid) surveyor will be required to do a valuation.

3) There isn''t a time factor but there is no reason I can think of why one couldn''t be agreed.

She probably wants some equity and to be released from the mortgage in order to buy somewhere else. Could you afford to buy her out and then sell it when/if house prices rise?

1) What would such an order look like? I mean, if it''s on the market at the price suggested by the estate agent surely that''s all I can do?

2) I think the value is agreed, it''s just the speed issue. There are other houses up for sale which are taking their time. It''s a slow market after all.


3) Would any party be forced to accept the timeframe? I''m prepared to wait years if I have to.

I probably can afford to buy her out but I don''t see why I should be forced to do so.

The way I see it, buying her out means I''m accepting all the risk of owning the house and gets out scot free

I don''t realy want to stay here but I need to save for a new place.

I''d love to buy a new place on my own too so why should I be left with all the illiquid assets?

I think we should just get it valued, advertise and sell.

I shouldn''t have to accept less value or anything for a quick sell - if it takes years then that''s just the way it is surely?

Has any of this been court ordered or is it something you have agreed between you?

Survive
x

Nothing yet, just that they''re saying the value of X is unrealistic as it''ll take longer to realise, so best to go for Y for a quick sale.

But that means I''m losing out on cash, just because it takes a while to realise so why I should I agree to that?

The point about separation/divorce is to separate your lives and finances. You don''t have to agree to your wife''s proposal, but you need to be aware that if no agreement is reached your wife can apply to court and a sheriff would determine how the matrimonial assets are shared. He (or she) has the authority to order a valuation if necessary and the sale or transfer of the property. The costs of court proceedings aren''t insignificant, so you could lose a lot more cash and the property would ultimately be sold if neither of you want it to be transferred to your name.

Fiona is right, the difference in the reduction may cost more than that in legal bills, should it go that way. If it is not much of a variation then I would suggest trying to reach a compromise. The only winners would be the solicitors at the end of the day!

Survive
x