Tenants in common - forcing other out

Comms69

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1594984/Tenants-common.html

Slithery

richy4 wrote: »

This I do not know. Is this an official thing written down in the documents?

Yes. But if they didn't state otherwise then I believe the default situation is 50/50.

saajan_12

richy4 wrote: »

They never drew up any agreement upon purchase.- if it was bought as Tenants in Common, there ideally should have been a deed of trust specifying the %
split.

However, based on the 3 years living together and paying 50/50 mortgage and bills, that would be 50/50. -
agree, that would be safe to assume in the absence of any agreement otherwise.

But my partner put in the deposit, so that must make their share more than 50/50 even during the 3 years living together. - no, that may affect what you think of as the 'fair' split but legally contributions are irrelevant to beneficial ownership. Also, if you're considering what's fair, the ex's contribution to furniture & fees should be considered equally with partner's deposit contribution.

Since the ex moving out, my partner has paid 100% of the mortgage and overpaid the mortgage and paid off an additional charge on the property (separate loan). - as you admit, this is offset by partner having full use of the property / occupational rent for ex's share of the property. So partner should not have any credit for the full mortgage payments. Also, the ex still benefitted from the line of credit provided by ex having the mortgage in their name. All of this equates to me as now totally unequal shares. - yes, to you. Not legally though. My partner paid these payments for their own benefit, not the ex. If my partner ever believed the ex would come back asking for their 'share' then my partner would not have paid these. - then this should have been discussed before paying. Why would partner not think the ex would come back for their share, as its clear they did contribute something?
Equally ex could state they wouldn't have paid fees / furniture / half mortgage and tied up their credit for a property they weren't going to get the proceeds from.

The solicitor quoted 'estoppel' in this regard. My partner believed the ex left in good faith, only for the ex to now return with this vengence.- yes, in good faith that partner would pay for & use the full property. Not that they would be denied their share.

Where do you get your 98%, now 95% figures from?

Legally it sounds like the only agreement was the Tenants in Common, so shares are as specified then or 50/50 by default. Unless there is a (provable) agreement after this, any unilatteral contributions to overpayments or the deposit v fees split is irrelevant to beneficial ownership.

So, find out how much ex wants, and negotiate from there. Forcing a sale would likely cost more in legal fees, which wouldn't all be taken out of ex's share as it doesn't sound like they are in the wrong.

Marvel1

richy4 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

I would like to know how/who decides who has what share.

It seems very obvious to me that my partner has the overwhelming majority, being most generous would be 95/5.

In court by a judge - if got to that stage.

The major problem with this comment is your biased.

steampowered

Shouldn't the ex be entitled to get a share of the equity based on the 3 years they were paying 50% of the mortgage?

Personally I would start by working out how much the ex paid towards the mortgage, and offer to pay them that.

The difficulty with this thread is that we are getting third hand information - you are reporting to us what a solicitor told your partner, and I feel that something has got lost in translation.

I think people need to know why the solicitor thinks the ex is only entitled to second hand furniture costs, to comment.