Tenants in Common but no contribution

emjay2kay

Not a property lawyer but I'd be pretty certain that those letters will not override what is recorded and registered with the land registry. Your solicitor might be able to say whether there's any chance of your letter above persuading a judge to depart from the actual deed, but again I wouldn't be hopeful personally. You might need a property litigation lawyer to answer that question btw - your conveyancing solicitor might not know.

Again, I can see your intention with the letter you wrote but that's not the same as a 95/5 split. You really needed to set out your position, as you have done in that letter, within a Declaration of Trust and it's that which should have gone to the land registry. The 95/5 thing wouldn't have been included anywhere, on any form - it would have just been the Declaration of Trust attached to the relevant transfer form. It's really bizarre how your shares of the property have been declared very differently to what you thought you were doing or intended. Again, I would look over all the paperwork and letters you have from your solicitor.

saschia

Thank you for all the advice. I know he is not the sort to waste money on solicitors etc a. Because he doesn’t have it and b. Because he knows the expense could out weigh his gain. I have learnt something new though that the 5% only relates to the equity not the house sold value - so that’s a good thing 

Soot2006

saschia said:

Thank you for all the advice. I know he is not the sort to waste money on solicitors etc a. Because he doesn’t have it and b. Because he knows the expense could out weigh his gain. I have learnt something new though that the 5% only relates to the equity not the house sold value - so that’s a good thing 

Think of it this way: if he owns 5% of the house, then he gets 5% of the equity, but he also owes 5% of the mortgage debt.

[Deleted User]

Soot2006 said:

saschia said:

Thank you for all the advice. I know he is not the sort to waste money on solicitors etc a. Because he doesn’t have it and b. Because he knows the expense could out weigh his gain. I have learnt something new though that the 5% only relates to the equity not the house sold value - so that’s a good thing 

Think of it this way: if he owns 5% of the house, then he gets 5% of the equity, but he also owes 5% of the mortgage debt.

Each of them has joint and several liability for the total mortgage debt.  The lender doesn't care about the TIC split.

[Deleted User]

Try and get this matter resolved now.  As long as he remains a joint owner he can remain a pain in your !!!!!!.  There are numerous threads on this forum from people who didn't sort out shared ownership of a property when the relationship broke down and years later are being held to ransom by the ex, unable to move on with their lives.

getmore4less

There are two seperate agreements. 
The one you have with the lender. 

The one you have between yourselfs. 
It's the later that decides who gets what. 

Problem is you did not think through what you put in writing and wrote down something different to what was intended. 

Should have said something closer to what was intended. 

 You own 50% paid on cash, you get that back in cash
The own 50% paid for by the mortgage and are responsible for the mortgage payments, they get back 50% less the outstanding mortgage. 

Thrugelmir

Can you afford the mortgage in your own right? If not the property will need to be sold.  Hanging onto the property would simply compound the issue you face. 

Soot2006

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Soot2006 said:

saschia said:

Thank you for all the advice. I know he is not the sort to waste money on solicitors etc a. Because he doesn’t have it and b. Because he knows the expense could out weigh his gain. I have learnt something new though that the 5% only relates to the equity not the house sold value - so that’s a good thing 

Think of it this way: if he owns 5% of the house, then he gets 5% of the equity, but he also owes 5% of the mortgage debt.

Each of them has joint and several liability for the total mortgage debt.  The lender doesn't care about the TIC split.

Of course, but why should she release him from the debt if he's going to play silly b*ggers about the payout?  He can't have it both ways.

[Deleted User]

Soot2006 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Soot2006 said:

saschia said:

Thank you for all the advice. I know he is not the sort to waste money on solicitors etc a. Because he doesn’t have it and b. Because he knows the expense could out weigh his gain. I have learnt something new though that the 5% only relates to the equity not the house sold value - so that’s a good thing 

Think of it this way: if he owns 5% of the house, then he gets 5% of the equity, but he also owes 5% of the mortgage debt.

Each of them has joint and several liability for the total mortgage debt.  The lender doesn't care about the TIC split.

Of course, but why should she release him from the debt if he's going to play silly b*ggers about the payout?  He can't have it both ways.

The OP can’t just release him from the debt. Not without his cooperation to allow her to remortgage on her own. 

saschia

My intention was as the letter I uploaded shows that he would NOT be entitled to the £130k deposit I put down and that we would each be entitled to the mortgage payments we had made back. However the solicitor did not do this as they claim they did not receive my letter, but an email trail I have proves they did as they acknowledged receipt of it. I can afford the mortgage in my own name too but I am tied in for the next 18 months.