With some reluctance I agreed to use the firm of sols that my ex works for to do the conveyancing for the sale of the FMH. I was assured by the partner involved that my ex would have no undue influence and that they would only do the conveyancing, up to distributing the net proceeds. Nothing else.
Now completion has taken place, they are not releasing the funds because my ex has said she wants them to use the proceeds to discharge other obligations in the court order - for example splitting joint bank accounts. I don''t agree to them doing this. These are obligations on us not the firm, and I don''t see how this gives them the right to hold on to the funds. There is a specific clause in the Order regarding the split of the net proceeds, this is all they should be following, surely?
What are my rights in this case? If they''re digging their heels in I can see us going back to court, but I find it outrageous that after I very careful instructed them purely on conveyancing, they are wading into other aspects of our Financial Order when they are not on the record and not instructed. Any thoughts? Thanks!
Thanks Charles. The instructions were specifically "to divide the net proceeds of sale according to an agreed split or if no agreement is reached the court-ordered split". The order then has a paragraph saying "proceeds of sale" with a percentage. That''s all very clear. My interpretation of this matter is that effectively my ex has lately changed her instructions from the agreed ones above to "divide the proceeds of sale and deal with a number of other matters before releasing the remaining funds". The firm are saying that there is no agreement now and the order doesn''t specifically order them to release the funds - why would it, they aren''t parties to the case and are not on the record - therefore they have no obligation to release the money. It''s theft! Do I call the police?!
Yes, court order has a section with a percentage split. But it just says the net proceeds should be applied according to that split, it doesn''t explicitly say the conveyancer (sp?!) is ordered to pay, nor would it I imagine as they were not parties to the order.