Name on house deeds

Ian_W

Hi amy,
It's really sad when families fall out like this - for all concerned.

Your dad really does need some proper legal advice. If your Grans name is on the deeds your dad cannot simply take her name off. Officially she part owns it with him, no matter who paid for it. Only her agreement (which seems very unlikely) or a court order of some kind could remove her entitlements as part owner.

**One thing does spring to mind though, there are 2 ways for more than one person own a property. One is "jointly" which doesn't signify a specific % owned by each, the other is "in common" which does, for example 50% (or whatever split) each. I'm almost sure (but you'd need to check with a lawyer) that if the property is owned "jointly" it passes automatically in full to the living owner on the other owners death. It can't be passed on in a will. Perhaps your Gran doesn't know this, if the ownership is joint?

You can download the Land Registry Title for the property HERE (for £4) which I think should show the specific % each owns if owned in common and if it doesn't should probably mean its jointly owned.

**Just typed all the above and seen your latest post - your Dad really does need his own legal advice as this letter from the solicitor revokes joint ownership, meaning she can leave her share in the property to who she wishes.

clutton_2

"""GIVE YOU NOTICE pursuant to the LAW of Property Act 1925 section 36 (2) that I desire to sever our joint tenancy in equity so that as from the date of this notification you and I shall hold the said property on trust for sale for ourselves as tenants in common in equal shares as if there has been an actual severance"

Amy - your father must go to a solicitor and talk about this - many firms have a "Free Surgery" and you can have a half hour free to talk things through, you can go with him to explain things.

good luck

Richard_Webster

I've read through this thread and was going to comment that if the grandmother had not severed the joint tenancy the house would pass to the dad anyway regardless of the contents of the will! Severance has altered the position so the grandmother does now have a share she can leave by will.

Moral is that there should have been a proper deed of trust when houses first bought setting out that as the dad had contributed all the purchase money the grandparents held it on trust for him absolutely. In recent years this loophole has been stopped and agreements/trust deeds signed within the discount period act as disposals which attract repayment of the discount - but if it was pre about 2005 then a trust deed would have done the trick and the dad could have lodged a restriction preventing a transfer without his consent.

amy.ackles

Thank you to everyone who has left comments, I appreciate the advice and support.

We have made an appointment to see a solicitor on Thursday, this was the only appointment they had for the solicitor who deals with cases like this.

I also spoke to a solicitor over the phone from another firm yesterday and he told me that it was a difficult case and explained that the only thing that we could do is to go to court and get a % definition declaration, where we could state our case and claim a bigger %.

But if we did this does anyone know how much it could increase to?
Because if we are going to get 50% now and we can only increase it to 60%, is it worthwhile going to court?? because of the costs of going to court, arguments etc

The thing is my grandmother will admit she did noy pay anything, we are hoping to get up to 80-90% but could this happen???

Amy

Ian_W

To be honest I don't know in a legal sense how this will be approached by the courts and, as you say, if your Dad can only increase his share by a small % then it probably isn't going to be worthwhile as costs will overshadow any gain. That's where the advice of the solicitor, armed with all the facts, should help you see whether it will be worth it.

Using fairness as a yardstick (not always a great guide to the law!), if this were to come before Lord Justice W in his chambers the issues I would see as important might in some respects, from the way you've posted, not be as favourable to your Dad as your Grandma. What % discount was there on the house? Your Dad might have paid the mortgage but he/they got ALL the house at a fraction of its' value - but only because your Grandparents stayed on the deeds. The "Right to Buy" was theirs, not his as I understand what you've said. So if there was a 30, 40 or 50% discount - why shouldn't that be your Grandma's or at least some of it?

What happened in the intervening 20odd years? Did they pay your Dad rent, who was responsible for upkeep and repairs? If they didn't pay anything at all that should strengthen your Dad's cause. But if they did pay for some aspects of the upkeep or rent of some sort that contribution should be recognised IMO. I don't think it is, or should be, a simple case of Dad paid the mortgage therefore its all his.

That's just my personal opinion but I'd be interested to know what the solicitor thinks.

amy.ackles

Response to last post:

What % discount was there on the house?
I am not sure, but i knoe he paid £20,000

Your Dad might have paid the mortgage but he/they got ALL the house at a fraction of its' value - but only because your Grandparents stayed on the deeds. The "Right to Buy" was theirs, not his:

Their names were on the rent book but my dad paid the rent for 2 years before he bought the house. Then paid the mortgage in full.

What happened in the intervening 20 odd years?

My dad bought a house a street away, so that he could stay close to his family. My grandmother, aunts and uncles all continued to live in the house.
My aunts and uncles never paid rent.

They now all own their own properties but have put them on to rent and continue to live in the house, rent free. My uncle recently got married and moved his wife in.

Did they pay your Dad rent?
NO.

Who was responsible for upkeep and repairs?
They paid for materials and my dad did all the work. This includes fitting a kitchen and bathroom twice, and decorating the house on a number of occassions.

Any way we had a family meeting yesterday, nothing was resolved,
as a result they can have 50% of the house but they will lose 50% of their family.

I hope that my dad will listen to me and my sister, sell the house and move out of this area, away from them.

LE3

So when Gran dies, your Dad will own 50% of the house & your uncle 50%?
Yes, it's a shame they didn't get something legal in place earlier to allow for your Dad's investment in the property, but unfortunately they didn't.

I don't know how much the house is worth but the logical thing to do would seem to be:
Sell the house, use part of your uncle's 50% to buy a flat for your uncle, invest the rest of your uncle's money to pay for his care and your Dad gets the 50% he's entitled to.

The rest of the family aren't entitled to anything - why are they so concerned?
I know your uncle wants to stay in the house, but he simply won't be able to - unless other family members can provide a gift to pay for the 50% of the house he doesn't own.
If your Dad expects to be the one ending up caring for your uncle, I would encourage him to get power of attorney so he can be fully responsible for your uncles finances, care etc. However I also see that your uncle recently married - is this the mentally ill one? If so his wife should be the carer not your father . If your uncle cannot function on his own, he must have a care worker who can help to draw up a formal care plan about who is responsible for what.

Money brings out the worst in families & it may come down to whether your Dad is willing to lose his family - or the money. He won't get both if his family are as selfish as you portray here - wanting to live rent free at his expense!

When he sees the solicitor, I'd be asking him to draw up a tenancy agreement to cover rent of his half of the house As part-owner, he is entitled to protect his investment & whilst your Gran would be entitled to live there rent free, if she is not paying bills etc, she cannot move in the rest of the family without his permission!

amy.ackles

I went to the solicitors with my dad, sister and brother-in-law today.

She informed us the joint tenancy agreement still stands as my dad did not sign the letter we recieved to agree to the change to common law.
As a result when one of them dies the other person will get the house.

So we were kind of happy, but if anything happened to my dad my gran would get the full 100%.

The solicitors told us to write a letter in response to the letter and state that we want to keep it as a joint tenancy. However we think that they will try some other legal angle to get the money.

Amy

mwahaha

You should get your solicitor to check that. My understanding (having been in the situation recently) is that you don't need an agreement to sever the tenancy, you just need to inform the other party. This link confirms that: http://books.google.com/books?id=YpLr688YNCYC&lpg=RA1-PA654&ots=uz8SbAbqB7&dq=Property%20Act%201925%20section%2036%20sever&pg=RA1-PA655#v=onepage&q=Property%20Act%201925%20section%2036%20sever&f=false

It doesn't mean she's entitled to 50% necessarily though, just that she can leave whatever % equity is agreed on to your uncle.

smartpicture

amy.ackles wrote: »

My grandmother, aunts and uncles all continued to live in the house...My uncle recently got married and moved his wife in.

Exactly how big is this ex-council house? :eek: