House up for Sale Without Co-owner's Permission

googler

banana_toast wrote: »

Yes the husband has a solicitor. We've only just found out about the sale this afternoon and, of course, the brief is not contactable!

Get the solicitor to write to the selling agent at earliest opportunity outlining that they don't have your consent to sell

Property_Auctions

I would never accept an instruction to sell unless both owners were in agreement. I assume the estate agent involved is confident that any agreed sale would reach exchange of contracts? If not, then you have to ask why they accepted the property in the first place.

banana_toast

Property_Auctions wrote: »

I would never accept an instruction to sell unless both owners were in agreement. I assume the estate agent involved is confident that any agreed sale would reach exchange of contracts? If not, then you have to ask why they accepted the property in the first place.

Thanks Property Auctions. That's what I would have hoped any reasonable Estate Agent would have done. The lot that the property has been put on sale with are renowned sharks.

And yes, it will almost certainly get an offer very quickly given the low price it's been advertised at ... given the husband is not allowed to contact the wife directly or indirectly for the next few days, he's saying he'll wait until then before he addresses the house sale issue...

Property_Auctions

banana_toast wrote: »

Thanks Property Auctions. That's what I would have hoped any reasonable Estate Agent would have done. The lot that the property has been put on sale with are renowned sharks.

And yes, it will almost certainly get an offer very quickly given the low price it's been advertised at ... given the husband is not allowed to contact the wife directly or indirectly for the next few days, he's saying he'll wait until then before he addresses the house sale issue...

There's no harm in making an offer - but the buyers should not instruct their solicitor until the EA confirms that the husband is also happy to accept that figure.

DVardysShadow

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

The wife can market the property, there is nothing unlawful or illegal about this and it is unlikely that the estate agents will be concerned or take any action even if the husband does go in and see them (both myself and my cousin were in a similar position at different times and in different parts of the country, so I speak from experience)

The other co-owner's agreement is needed to finalise the sale. He will have to sign the contracts assuming of course that his name is on the deeds. However if he refuses to sign the wife can ask the court to intervene, and if there is a divorce in progress this is likely to happen and the husband is likely to be ordered to bear the cost. Why? Because the purpose of the joint ownership (to provide a home for the co-owners) no longer exists. Property prices are still falling in many parts of the country and it is unreasonable to expect one co-owner to carry on living in and maintaining the property and/or paying a mortgage which is the responsibility of both (if that is what is happening).

The alternative of course is for the husband to buy the wife out and go and live in the property himself until he can sell it at a price that he is happy with.

That line of argument is sufficient for selling against an unreasonable objection. But for me it does not seem good enough to hold against an allegation that the property is being sold undervalue. It is difficult to manage a sale with an injunction in place and I would expect the courts to protect the interests of the party constrained by the injunction - albeit at a cost which exceeds the value in contention.

IanManc

It is most unlikely that the terms of any injunction would prevent the husband from instructing his solicitors to contact his wife's solicitors.

As for the estate agents ....... well they might not actually know that the property is jointly owned. It may come as an unpleasant surprise to them.

I don't think the husband should delay contacting his solicitor about this. And if the injunction is to be reviewed in a few days then the fact that the wife has purported to market the property without the co-owner's consent is illustrative of her own conduct, and so the court may be very interested in it.

zzzLazyDaisy

If the sale is at a gross undervalue, then of course that is a different matter

But OP says

'Wife has signed up with estate agents and put the family home on the market at a price which is a bit on the low side'

In a divorce (if that is the case here) the courts would take into consideration the need for a fairly quick sale in order to finalise the financial aspects, and a price that is 'a bit on the low side' in OP's view may not be unreasonable in the courts view.

banana_toast

DVardys - thank you for that consideration.
IanManc - wrt to contact we're just concerned about the phrase "directly or indirectly." In our mind "indirect" communication could also be construed if a solicitor's letter is sent concerning a joint matter...
ZZLD - The "bit on the low side" is actually around about 10% - given the property was recently valued (for other purposes) at 10% higher than the current asking price. The husband would rather the property was put on at that valuation price which allowed for some negotiation rather than a "fixed price" type of fire sale.

zzzLazyDaisy

banana_toast wrote: »

IanManc - wrt to contact we're just concerned about the phrase "directly or indirectly." In our mind "indirect" communication could also be construed if a solicitor's letter is sent concerning a joint matter...

'Indirect communication' does not include one party's solicitor contacting the other party's solicitor. That is exactly the right way to deal with the need to communicate.