Remind me not to tell Ben that when we sold our house it was close to the peak and had doubled in value. That's our little secret, remember, DON'T TELL BENNY!

Also don't tell him that our house has apparently appreciated in price by almost 30%, we only had the offer accepted in November last year... we did spend close to 40% of the 30% increase on STUFF (renovations etc), just hope property prices don't collapse again. SHHHH!!!!

(I feel like that silly lady in the SecretEscapes ad)

that's essentially meaningless unless you're about to sell it though. Or maybe to remortgage. If Truffy was able to buy his next house on the other side of the peak when things are cheaper, then it's a win. If everything's going up, then your next house just went up as well so it makes no useful difference. Innit!

Stop it with your logic and witchcraft!

Killjoy... I'm well aware of all that, but at least I'm not being a fun-sponge!

it's your own fault, you mentioned that fucking advert. I barely see a TV ad nowadays and I'm still aware of that one - it's shit transcends, man.

I have never seen that ad.

And now I want to. :((

That's one of them.

You mean there's more? One wasn't enough?

Thanks for the education. I can now see what Mike's on about.

OK, so I'm left wondering why?

Because what is just and what is legal are very different things?

Right, but who said you had to give the 20%, your lawyer or hers? Reason I ask is because I was told something in a case I was involved in but the truth was on the other side, much more to my benefit. I pushed for answers, researched more and found that while I could have agreed in the issue, I also could negotiate for something better.

I am guessing you have that ability is well. Perhaps the reason for the 20% has something to do with what happened prior to the negative equity situation that remains applicable after, such as your ex put money toward the purchase of the house? What ever happened to the aces? I suppose you didn't want to have to use them.

For me, that would be a sticky situation were I to get divorced; we don't have "his money and her money", we have our money. I know some other couples who have totally separate finances, one pays utilities and one pays the mortgage, one pays the car loan the other pays the mobile bill. Too confusing to my way of thinking. Not saying this is your situation.

Maybe I am just old fashioned.  (car)

I believe that lady is also doing a turn in Casualty. The tv show, that is.

Could be Holby City. I wasn't really paying attention. :C
 

The difference being that your lawyers are all just a bunch of money-grabbing crooks, while Sottish lawyers are fine, upstanding members of honest society.

Oh yes.

20% equates to around 5 grand, that's the minimum it would cost in legal fees to pursue it through the courts. It'd probably cost me more because Scottish lawyers are just the same as every other lawyer, despite what truffle says.

Also going legal would delay me getting my dirty mitts on my share of the cash. As I haven't worked since the start of July and am still owed money from my previous employer I really can't afford to wait for court dates and shit.

I should've used blue text, at least for the last part

Wouldn't have mattered, that last bit was offscreen. Only saw it after I posted to fixr!

Damn, wish I'd known that. I could've hired a Scottish lawyer, he'd probably have represented for free.

Okay, your decision is being made in a pragmatic sense. Can't much argue with that. Still, why does she the think she is entitled to anything? Why can't she just walk away and leave you to it, knowing she contributed nothing?

You're assuming he's dealing with a reasonable person.

She may be a money grabber who knows the situation well enough to think she can get some free money out of it.

As Kos says, the amount he mentioned is the sweet spot of being what it would cost to sort it legally. It's the minimum amount of money he'd lose going down a legal route.