Forced to leave joint tenancy by ex - where do I stand?

DVardysShadow

Right, you need to produce the legal reference to show that A of A+B cannot give notice until the fixed term has come to an end in order to preserve B's 'right' to a SP tenancy. As far as I can see, B does not have any right to go SP. It is A+B who have that right.

Indeed, your previous post said it very succinctly - The Joint and Several partnership only endures for as long as anything it has committed itself to - It is the commitment of A&B until such a time that A&B decide to end that commitment or the time arises when A or B can end that commitment alone. That time does not arise until the start of the periodic.

Notice does not immediately end a commitment. Notice says that a commitment will end at a future specified time. The earliest that A can end the commitment is at the end of the fixed term. That does not preclude A from giving due notice prior to the earliest point at which the commitment can come to an end.

However, after the periodic has arisen, valid notice can be served by A (of A&B) because it is possible to unilaterally serve notice during the periodic tenancy and it would not have the unwanted impact of removing B right to a periodic tenancy. Your comment that B has the power to hold A to a periodic tenancy indefiantley is obviously a tonge and cheek sugestion. The maximum that A could every be held to would be one month of periodic tenancy.

If A leaves after 1 month of SP, and B can continue alone, I don't see why A cannot leave at the end of the fixed term leaving B to continue alone. There is no tongue in cheek suggestion that B has the power to hold A to a periodic tenancy indefinitely. I am saying that this would be ridiculous and inequitable.

Planner

You seem big on equitability. Is it equitable that A could run off two months into a 12 month tenancy and leave B to foot the 10 month rent bill? Is it equitable that B could trash the place and lose A's half of the deposit? Unfortunatley inequity is the nature of the beast with a joint tenancy.
Again we are back to the validity of notices . Your point above about notices ending the joint commitment not at the time of service but at a future date is flawed. An invalid notice served at x point in the fixed term will be just as invalid once that future date arrives.

DVardysShadow

Planner wrote: »

You seem big on equitability. Is it equitable that A could run off two months into a 12 month tenancy and leave B to foot the 10 month rent bill? Is it equitable that B could trash the place and lose A's half of the deposit? Unfortunatley inequity is the nature of the beast with a joint tenancy.

Forgive me, but that is not too relevant. You are talking about equitability when people break agreements. Well of course that is riddled with inequity. I am talking about equitable ways of terminating agreements. Note the distinction between 'terminate' and 'break'.

Planner wrote: »

Again we are back to the validity of notices . Your point above about notices ending the joint commitment not at the time of service but at a future date is flawed. An invalid notice served at x point in the fixed term will be just as invalid once that future date arrives.

But it is valid to serve notice on an AST before the end of the fixed term. Go on tell me that is wrong.

Planner

DVardysShadow wrote: »

But it is valid to serve notice on an AST before the end of the fixed term. Go on tell me that is wrong.

In the contexr of this thread and situation I believe I already have.

DVardysShadow

Planner wrote: »

In the contexr of this thread and situation I believe I already have.

Just to clarify, it is invalid for A+B, the joint and several tenants to serve notice 1 month before the end of the fixed period of the AST to end on the last day of the AST?

Planner

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Just to clarify, it is invalid for A+B, the joint and several tenants to serve notice 1 month before the end of the fixed period of the AST to end on the last day of the AST?

In the situation you descrbe here the service of notice is not required, therefore any notice served would be irrelevent. I will leave you to decide if irrelevant equates to invalid.

DVardysShadow

Planner wrote: »

In the situation you descrbe here the service of notice is not required, therefore any notice served would be irrelevent. I will leave you to decide if irrelevant equates to invalid.

Thanks to the DebtFreeWannabe's I'm off to http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/cgi-bin/seigmiaow.pl? rather than make that decision.

Planner

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Thanks to the DebtFreeWannabe's I'm off to http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/cgi-bin/seigmiaow.pl? rather than make that decision.

Probably for the best