My mums ex is trying to fleece her!

whitewing

I think before we got married, we were tenants in common. I am pretty sure that something we signed for the solicitor only allowed the other person to have a guest for a maximum of 14 days.

holly_hobby

Hi,

Tenants in common (TIC) is a great start - as under this arrangement (which even married couples can choose to effect) the eequity and legal ownership can be unequally split. (whereas under JOINT tenants (JT) - the equity and legal ownership is automatically and equally split between all owners, (which in some cases can involve more than 2 individuals).

Mum now needs to seek confirmation as to how the TIC and ownership split was apportioned .... even under a TIC the SOL may have just did it 50/50, but effected the TIC arrangement because it means that the individuals involved can individually bequeath their share to their chosen beneficiaries on death (whereas under a JT upon death of an owner, their share of equity automatically reverts to the surviving owner(s) - and can not be inc any any will or intestacy proceedings).

So, in a nutshell she needs to get sight of the deed and how it was written - LR will advise, with the Sol possibly having details retained within their systems and archive strorage.

Then she can take a next step .... please also advise her of my comments re the unoccupancy and blds ins aspect - as this is essential to deal as a matter of urgency (assuming of course that they haven't already effected unoccupied ins cover).

Hope this helps

Holly

zzzLazyDaisy

Robin1980 wrote: »

I understand that if they had been joint tenants then there is not much chance of her getting a greater share but does tenants in common change that?

Thanks

You need to know what shares the TinC was registered in. As far as I know, that isn't recorded on the land registry deeds, but on a separate document that is lodged with the LR, and released to the solicitor when the house is sold (hopefully Holly will be along soon to confirm/correct this).

But whatever shares the house is held in, that is what he is entitled to.

It sounds like your mum's memory of what happened is very selective. There is no way that the house was changed from her sole name to tenants in common, without her having a meeting with a solicitor and all her options being spelled out to her. Changing to TinC would have required her specific instructions, and the business of whether to hold as 50/50 or in unequal shares would also have been discussed.

I am sorry to say this, but it does make me wonder what else she is keeping from you - which she is of course entitled to do, it is her business after all - but it will make helping her very difficult.

holly_hobby

Hi D x

Our posts crossed ....

Robin, as Daisy says, your mum & ex would have had to sign transfer of equity (TOE) forms to have the deeds changed into joint names (which appears to have been a necessary evil, as her own income was insufficient to support the extra 30k borrowings she reqd at the time).

Having taken (by deedpoll ?) his name means nothing legally, as they were not married or civil partners. The solicitor may have assumed they were a married couple, but should still have explained the material effect the TOE would have - whether that is a requirement of best advice under the law code (and therefore negligence if he didn't) I don't know as my field is FS, but the lovely Daisy may be able to help there.

What a bloomin pickle we're in ... !

H

Ooh ps - we do have a land registry rep on the board - I'll try and find him and have him look in ...

Robin1980

That's great thanks. Will go and see her over the weekend and ask/ explain everything you all have said.

holly_hobby

Have contacted the LR rep - hopefully he'll bob up any minute !

H x

zzzLazyDaisy

holly_hobby wrote: »

Having taken (by deedpoll ?) his name means nothing legally, as they were not married or civil partners. The solicitor may have assumed they were a married couple, but should still have explained the material effect the TOE would have - whether that is a requirement of best advice under the law code (and therefore negligence if he didn't) I don't know as my field is FS, but the lovely Daisy may be able to help there.

Ooh ps - we do have a land registry rep on the board - I'll try and find him and have him look in ...

Hi Hobby, thanks for the vote of confidence! As it happens, I did used to be involved in negligence cases against solicitors - in the dim and distant past. The problem is that, at the moment, there is nothing to suggest that the solicitor did not advise properly on the implications, other than the fact that OP's mum doesn't remember being advised about this. But she doesn't remember seeing a solicitor, or even using a solicitor, she didn't even remember putting the house into his name. OP, the file becomes your mum's property once the bill has been paid and she can request it at any time. All sols keep files for at least 6 years and most for a lot longer then that. She just has to make the request in writing, and be prepared to wait as if it is archived the old fashioned way (ie not on computer) it will be probably be in a warehouse somewhere.

But I wouldn't hold out much hope of making a complaint against the solicitor - from what you say, it seems to me that your mum was probably under the influence of this man at the time, and would probably have convinced herself to trust HIS judgement/advice. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he was 'pulling her strings' in the background. I think it is much more likely that the solicitor did advise, but that she allowed herself to be persuaded/bulldozed by this man - it happens a lot in relationships (married or not).

As a side note - It is threads like this that make my time on MSE so worthwhile - where else would OP get pretty much instant access to three experts in their fields?

holly_hobby

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

As a side note - It is threads like this that make my time on MSE so worthwhile - where else would OP get pretty much instant access to three experts in their fields?

Hear hear to that Daisy !!!

My Hubby thinks I'm mad "why do you all give your knowledge for free", but my view is it would be a crime for anyone to waste their knowledge or experience when they can help someone in need .... and like you, I find it quite rewarding.

In fact, there was just a story in the Mail about a woman who had left a puppy with mange until it got quite bad - she took it to a vet whom, because she couldn't afford to pay for treatment, simply turned her and the obviusly suffering dog away ...... perhaps if he had possessed the same ethos as us MSE'ers, that little puppy wouldn't have ended up in the horrfic state it did, with the lady (although obv negligent and to blame for allowing it to get hold as it did) subsequently stooping to pretending to have found it as a stray, to try and get the RSPCA to treat it. (sorry I know off tangent ... but this angered me so much when I read it, and the WIIFM attitude people have).

Ahem .. (holly steps down off soap box) .. back to the plot ... I also don't believe there will be case for the Sol to answer due to the fact that Mums recollection of the whole episode is murky to say the least.

They will as we say have archieved details of the transaction through, as well as LR being able to advise of the arrangement - as I say I have contacted Mr LR - whom I thought may have been by, by now, but sure he'll pop up shortly.

H x

kingstreet

A few weeks ago, we had a lady with a couple of kids come on here worried she was about to lose her home. The mortgage and property was in her ex's name and he had died intestate. She thought the property would have to be sold by the administrator of the estate to repay the existing mortgage.

We established it was in fact a jointly owned (joint tenancy) property with a joint mortgage and that these would simply be transferred into her sole name and she would be able to continue to live there and that there was no risk to her home.

Many of the threads on here are "should I have a fix or a tracker?" or "can I get a mortgage when I was a day late paying my credit card bill in 1997?" but that one sticks in my mind as an important thread which directly helped someone who felt they were in trouble.

It made me feel the same way as when my first critical illness claim was paid around 2005. That what I do does have some value after all.

holly_hobby

Agreed Kings ... in fact all your posts add value x

Indeed there's just been another post where the guy needed to extend his mge due to wife's ill health (long story), the lender had told him no way redemption was redemption - he came on here in a flap, where I and others gave guidance, and he's just announced today that the mge co have now agreed to extend as requested.

It was such a nice post to read, as often peeps don't re-visit and tell us if we were of any use or help ... so this made my Friday !

H x