Selling: who pays my co freeholders costs?

CT41

Hi all,

Hoping someone can help. Bear with me, it's complicated!

I'm selling my flat, and it's been a 7 month nightmare with too many disasters to bore you with. It's a Victorian house converted into two flats, and both parties share ownership of the freehold.

My extremely demanding buyer insisted on a new lease, new lease plan the lot, which has required the same of my co freeholder. In part this is due to errors in the original lease made in the past by our solicitor, which they have admitted to. I had asked my buyer to contribute to my co freeholders legal costs as his demand for a new lease was not necessary (the errors could have been dealt with by deed of variation) and was not at the request of his lender. He refused. My buyer and co freeholder are now arguing between themselves over the content of the lease, and 7 months on we still haven't exchanged...

My issue is whether we are obligated to pay our co freeholders legal costs for the new lease (which she of course will benefit from). Without any consultation with me, my solicitor has struck a deal with my co freeholders solicitor to pay their costs, rather than me, as "payment" for the errors identified in the old lease. This assumes I am obligated to pay her costs. If not, our co freeholder financially benefits from this and we don't!

A friend of mine was in a similar position where her co freeholder was selling and their buyer demanded a new lease. In that case, my friend was left to pay her own costs.

I need to know whether I can legitimately fight my solicitor on this.

Thanks

jjlandlord

Your options are:
1. you pay for it
2. you pay for it and the buyer reimburse you
3. the buyer pays for it (though in practice I suppose that would be #2)

Therefore, why would you "fight your solicitor" because he offers to pay it himself?

Me thinks your cunning plan is to have the buyer pay for it and ask your solicitor for compensation...

CT41

Oh you have so misread this situation! Trust me, the only person who is losing here is me (including on the last minute price drop my buyer has just visited on me).

I don't have a cunning plan, I don't expect my buyer to pay AND get compensation from my solicitor. The fact is my solicitor has cocked up, they have quite reasonably agreed to absorb some costs as a result. My issue is that they have decided, without any consultation with me, where that compensation is to be applied I.e to my co freeholder. So right now the only person benefitting from mistakes made by MY solicitor on MY sale is my co freeholder. That doesn't seem right to me, given that sigificant expenses I am incurring due to the protracted sale. I'm also annoyed it wasn't discussed with me, given I am their client.

All I want to understand is whether I am legally obligated to pay my co freeholders costs. If I am, fine. If I'm not, I'm annoyed their costs have been paid by my solicitor with no consultation.

buglawton

I would
a) take it off the market
b) completely fix it lease to make it perfect
c) put it back on the market at a 20% higher price

The buyers wanted the pre-fixed-lease price but wants a fixed lease
It it had been fixed to start with, buyers would have stampeded to buy it

theEnd

CT41 wrote: »

All I want to understand is whether I am legally obligated to pay my co freeholders costs. If I am, fine. If I'm not, I'm annoyed their costs have been paid by my solicitor with no consultation.

You're the one that needs to sell, so I would think you would need to pay this.

But, I'd agree with the last post. Your buyer wants lower than pre-fixed lease price, but also wants the lease fixed.

If you think you can easily get more, I'd put it back on the market.

stator

All costs are subject to negotiation. So there is no legal requirement for who pays for anything.
Since your situation is quite unusual, I would say the solicitor's offer is reasonable and you should probably accept that. It doesn't mean you shouldn't get some compensation too, is he acting on your behalf for the current sale? Is he offering a discount?
It sounds like your buyer is a right pain, you should ask your estate agents what they think you could get if you put it back on the market and seriously consider doing so.

CT41

Thanks all, we're far too down the line to ditch the buyer (tho would in a heartbeat if circumstances different). We have a purchase to think of (a house we really want) and we're relocating to a totally new area before our child starts school in September, so the school place to think of as well.

You're right, our buyer is a total pain, but he's played us from the start. He's chain free and knowing our circumstances has taken advantage of that. We only asked for one thing in this process, to exchange in time to provide proof of address for our school place. He didn't even give us that. He's totally screwed us financially as well. If I've learnt one thing is never underestimate how dishonest and ruthless people can be.

But sometimes you have to let it go and see the bigger picture. That, and my advice would be never buy and sell at the same time! Soon I'll have swapped the city for a new life by the sea! Just wish it felt like my own solicitor was working for me, and not everyone else....

CT41

buglawton wrote: »

I would
a) take it off the market
b) completely fix it lease to make it perfect
c) put it back on the market at a 20% higher price

The buyers wanted the pre-fixed-lease price but wants a fixed lease
It it had been fixed to start with, buyers would have stampeded to buy it

We had 8 offers, so no lack of interested buyers! On paper, he was a good buyer ( but you never really know until you get into it). If we weren't so keen to keep the house we're buying we would do exactly as you suggest...