The relevance of further education?

At my Final Hearing the judge ruled that the FMH was to be transferred to my stbx but the joint mortgage and my parents'' second charge on the property (a significant investment given towards the deposit on the house protected by a Deed of Trust which the judge ruled as valid and binding) was to stay in place with no time limits given.

A solicitor has stated that the decision MAY have been made as my stbx has a daughter in further education. Under oath my stbx admitted that her daughter''s NVQ course became part time from September and that she would be getting a part time job as well. Both my stbx and her eldest daughter are now working as well.

Neither daughters are mine and both are over 18 now and our marriage was a short one (just over 5 years). I paid all the deposit for the FMH (along with the large loan from my family member)and until we split I paid all the mortgage and all the bills.

At face value the ruling gives my stbx the right to stay in the FMH forever with me having no chance of getting myself off the mortgage (and therefore ever buying another property) and my poor parents never getting their money back....

Surely the ruling is flawed if it WAS based on the daughter in further education? I realise she was a ''child of the family'' but, based on the info above, how can this be fair??

Has anyone got just an opinion on this? I know its down to whatever the judge decides on the day but I just can''t see any logic behind it?

Its driving me mad, especially the guilt that my parents'' money has been lost through no fault of their own.....

It''s difficult to comment without knowing the specific details or seeing the exact terms.

Your solicitor could be correct. Dependant children under 18 are a priority but children over 18 in education or training, full time or part time aren''t irrelevant as far as courts are concerned. There''s no discrimination between step-children and natural children of the relationship. When was the order made? If there are no limits of time you might be able to apply under the slip rule to amend the order under the slip rule or under the "liberty to apply for implementation" clause.

The other explanation is the intention is for your wife to remain living in the property for the rest of her life and the realisation of your interest postponed the husband’s interest from being realised until then if it was found you had no immediate need of a capital , and the wife would have had insufficient equity to re-house herself. That''s known as a Martin order and isn''t that common particularly after a short marriage.

What does your solicitor advise?

Thanks so much for your reply Fiona.

I have checked my court order and it states ''liberty to apply to the court on implementation and execution only''. There is NO mention of any time limits or trigger events: surely this can''t be right? Any ideas what the next step should be?

There is no fairness if the judge HAS ruled that my stbx can stay in the FMH for the rest of her life: she has more assets than me and I have ended up with all the debts and am seriously considering bankruptcy.
With her and her eldest daughter''s income she would have no problem renting a property which is what I have had to do: in fact she told the judge that she had not bothered paying the mortgage for months as she fully expected the FMH to be sold and she was saving up a deposit to rent!

I have looked at the definition of a Martin Order and it really doesn''t look like it has any relevance to my circumstances...

I''m bumping this to see if anyone else has an opinion based on the info I have posted...
Thanks.