Saturday, April 10, 2010

Hubby's Failure To Disclose Cheating Relationship Results In Favorable Ruling In Wife's Attempt To Undo Mortgage Refinancing Of Family Home

In Gorelston, Norfolk (UK), Norfolk News reports:

  • A Norfolk mother has won a landmark court ruling that may give her judicial protection against her home being repossessed - because she was unaware her husband was cheating on her.

  • Top judges ruled that Jayne Hewett was “unduly influenced” by her husband Darren Hewett, who had kept quiet about his affair when he persuaded her to charge his massive credit card debts against their family home, a breach of his “duty of fairness and candour”. Mrs Hewett had reluctantly agreed to take out the substantial loan against their home in [] Gorleston, in January 2004.

  • She had faced the choice of agreeing to the deal or saying no and holding on to her half of the already-mortgaged house, a move Mr Justice Briggs described as akin to having a “plank in a shipwreck.(1)

***

  • However Mrs Hewett may not necessarily be able to remain in her home, because a County Court judge will now have to decide whether First Plus is entitled to enforce the debt against Mr Hewett's former half share in the property. If that is the case, Colomb Road will have to be sold, although Mrs Hewett will not be as badly off.

For the story, see Norfolk mum wins landmark property ruling.

(1) The court's additional observations in support of their decision is reflected in this excerpt from the story:

  • I am persuaded that Mr Hewett's concealment of his affair from his wife did amount to the exercise of undue influence against her, sufficient to vitiate the re-mortgage transaction, as between them,” said the judge. Mr Justice Briggs added that the affair was “plainly a material fact calling for disclosure” as Mrs Hewett had agreed to enter into the mortgage transaction because she believed her husband was as “committed to the marriage as she was”. He said Mr Hewett was “guilty of a deliberate concealment of the affair” because he knew that if he had told his wife about it, she may not have consented to his proposal. “It is evident from his forgery of his mother-in-law's signature on the consent form that Mr Hewett was prepared to stop at nothing to achieve his objective,” added the judge, observing that Mr Hewett was later convicted over that matter.

No comments: