House status following split...

cnbcnb

Tokmon said:

cnbcnb said:

sassyblue said:

cnbcnb said:

I've asked the conveyancer for copies of the paperwork, she doesn't appear to have anything as her other half handled it all. I would like for her to see the form she signed in the hope she can recall the circumstances.

It's all starting to look quite worrying. I find it terrifying that one can potentially sign half of their home away on one signature, yet if you want to go into a branch to draw £1000 out you get the Spanish inquisition.

Hoping he doesn't stick the knife in harder than he already has.

Was the sale of your mums property and the purchase of the do-er upper all handled at the same time by the same solicitor? Or did her property sell first and she had the funds in an account and later purchased the doer upper?

Its really important because if the sale and purchase happened together, your mums partner would not have been able to be involved in the sale as it wasn’t his property.  Therefore, it would have been her SALES solicitor who could have warned her about the 
Pitfalls of investing HER monies with her partner in another purchase.

You say her partner handled it all but that’s not a defence I’m afraid (unless the purchase solicitor was unscrupulous which is unlikely), the purchase would have been in joint names and its important to know where the funds came from, seamless from the sale of her property, in an account in her sole name or did she put it in a joint account?  

You say it’s terrifying someone can sign half their money away in one signature but it wouldn’t have been one signature and because a solicitor was involved they would have been satisfied your mum was fully aware of what she was doing unless they were unscrupulous as I said which is unlikely, or her partner really hoodwinked her somehow.

The sale and purchase were handled by the same solicitor. The sales invoice is entirely in Mums name, it shows the balance of her sale which is then carried across onto the purchase invoice. At no point were any other funds introduced, in fact there was a small residual balance at the end, which I presume came back as a refund.

When I say that her partner handled it all, I only mean that he took the lead. I'm not saying she wasn't at all involved, and I'm not saying she didn't sign the paperwork, but he was the driving force. She trusted him explicitly at the time, of course she did, but she's not completely ignorant and that's why this is hard to unravel. It was the same with my property when my Wife and I bought it.

I'm reassured by your comment about not being able to sign it away just on one signature, I'm not as ignorant as some here might think. I'm trying to quiz my Mum to find out what her state of mind was. I'm also suspicious of the solicitors reluctance to provide any of the paperwork. I think they're a fairly respectable company, but my Mum is fairly sensible and so I can't figure out how/why she would have agreed to purchase the new home in this way if it had been explained to her and that's all I'm trying to get to the bottom of.

Well you said you mum trusted her ex so like most people in long term trusting relationships they don't think the chance of them breaking up is likely. Also the plan was for her ex to pay for all the repairs and organise all the work that needs doing to fix up the house and he isn't going to do this on a house that he doesn't own. At the time i can see why the 50/50 split was agreed because you mum puts all the money in at the start yes but then her ex would have been putting in a lot of work and money over the next however many months/years it would have taken to finish the project. 

So I'm not too sure why you are so surprised she agreed to buy the house in this way because there is a good explanation why it was done.

But putting in a £250k purchase, compared to, say, £50k renovation doesn't really add up?

I'm still back to the same position, does a solicitor have any duty of care to advise of the risks/consequences? If so, and they did it, then I accept she made her choice and we'll move on. But if this life-changing decision was made on one ill-informed signature, that's surely a problem for anyone?

wilfred30

As far as I'm aware, it's not the job of a conveyancing solicitor to give financial advice to their clients.  

Would your mum be saying that her partner didn't own half the house if she hadn't found out that he had been cheating on her?

cnbcnb

wilfred30 said:

As far as I'm aware, it's not the job of a conveyancing solicitor to give financial advice to their clients.  

Would your mum be saying that her partner didn't own half the house if she hadn't found out that he had been cheating on her?

Yes, that is what I'm saying.
I'm no expert, but in situations where a financial body hasn't been able to advise me on certain matters, they'll usually make that very clear and recommend that independent advice is sought. Mum says that she recalls no conversations like that, so I'm trying to understand if they have truly done their bit. I haven't said that I don't accept she might have made a mistake, but so far I can't rule out that they might not have exercised an appropriate duty of care of their client.

In a situation where the sale was completely entirely in her name, surely logic would suggest that the default advice should have been Tenants in Common with an agreed declaration of trust, with her having to consciously propose an alternative? That's all I'm asking here. With all the disclaimers involved in house purchasing, I'm sure they'd want to cover their backsides if a client went against the recommended solution? I asked them 2 weeks ago for the file papers, they haven't yet responded despite various chases, hence my cynicism.

sassyblue

wilfred30 said:

As far as I'm aware, it's not the job of a conveyancing solicitor to give financial advice to their clients.  

Would your mum be saying that her partner didn't own half the house if she hadn't found out that he had been cheating on her?

It most certainly is the job of a conveyancing solicitor to give advice to one party purchasing a property with all their money but adding another person's name jointly to the purchase.   If the Solicitor has not done so then they’ve left themselves and their firm wide open to a claim of professional negligence which could bankrupt a small firm.

sassyblue

OP I typed up a long reply then had a phone call and lost it all when my iPad went dormant    Anyway, a lot of offices are open but operating with skeleton staff because of social distancing rules so I can understand a delay (as they may still be overwhelmed with work), however, two weeks is a long time so get your mum to call them today.  They may not take instructions from you as the file is not in your name AND they actually have a duty of confidentiality to your mum, even the fact that she is a client of theirs is confidential information. Your mum must call.

Secondly, I had a thought.... who was the first (or main) client of this firm?  I was wondering about the reluctance of the Solicitors to provide information, and wondering if the ex was their usual main client.  If he was it could be the case that now they know the relationship has broken down they would rather they represent him in any negotiations to resolve the dispute so they keep his business going forward.  This is only really the case if he was a long standing client of theirs.  In any case, they still have a duty of care towards your mum to provide information here and it should NOT have prejudiced the previous sale and purchase because the Solicitor still had a duty of care towards your mum then as he took her on as a client.

Also, I need to explain again that by the very nature of opening a file and completing a transaction for her the Solicitor was satisfied your mum was of sound mind.  You made comments that the ex was the driving force and your mum’s state of mind but the Solicitor was satisfied otherwise he/she wouldn’t have acted.  You could ask if the file had been made 'high risk' at all, that’s when there could be issues around those areas i.e. if your mum was a heavy drinker and they could smell it on her and were concerned about her state of mind.

I think it’s more than likely your mum was advised of the pitfalls but she was quite happy to go ahead at the time, secure in the relationship and not taking in the importance of the information but of course now it’s gone wrong you are all looking for loopholes, but I get it, it’s natural.

wilfred30

Ok, fair enough but no-one here knows whether the solicitor did ask the question or not and the chances are, if they did, the OP's mum probably said oh, it's fine, we've been together for 10 years and I trust him completely.

As I said, the OP's mum is only trying to get out of it now because he cheated on her.

wilfred30

cnbcnb said:

wilfred30 said:

As far as I'm aware, it's not the job of a conveyancing solicitor to give financial advice to their clients.  

Would your mum be saying that her partner didn't own half the house if she hadn't found out that he had been cheating on her?

In a situation where the sale was completely entirely in her name, surely logic would suggest that the default advice should have been Tenants in Common with an agreed declaration of trust, with her having to consciously propose an alternative? That's all I'm asking here. With all the disclaimers involved in house purchasing, I'm sure they'd want to cover their backsides if a client went against the recommended solution? I asked them 2 weeks ago for the file papers, they haven't yet responded despite various chases, hence my cynicism.

Did you personally ask them for the paperwork or did your mum?  If the former, they presumably don't have to give it to you as you were not their client.  So your mum has to ask for it.

sassyblue

cnbcnb said:

Yes, that is what I'm saying.
I'm no expert, but in situations where a financial body hasn't been able to advise me on certain matters, they'll usually make that very clear and recommend that independent advice is sought. Mum says that she recalls no conversations like that, so I'm trying to understand if they have truly done their bit. I haven't said that I don't accept she might have made a mistake, but so far I can't rule out that they might not have exercised an appropriate duty of care of their client.

In a situation where the sale was completely entirely in her name, surely logic would suggest that the default advice should have been Tenants in Common with an agreed declaration of trust, with her having to consciously propose an alternative? That's all I'm asking here. With all the disclaimers involved in house purchasing, I'm sure they'd want to cover their backsides if a client went against the recommended solution? I asked them 2 weeks ago for the file papers, they haven't yet responded despite various chases, hence my cynicism.

By going to a solicitor for a house sale and purchase you are taking independent legal advice - from them.  Your mum wasn’t forced to use them she went to them, that’s what independent means, and they wouldn’t have advised your mum to go elsewhere because they are trained to handle such transactions.

I would be very, very surprised if your mum wasn’t told of the pitfalls and even asked about Declaration of Trusts.  In the meantime you can use the land registry online and for approx £12 obtain office copy entries which will tell owners of a house and how that property is held I.e. tenants in common.

Tokmon

cnbcnb said:

Tokmon said:

cnbcnb said:

sassyblue said:

cnbcnb said:

I've asked the conveyancer for copies of the paperwork, she doesn't appear to have anything as her other half handled it all. I would like for her to see the form she signed in the hope she can recall the circumstances.

It's all starting to look quite worrying. I find it terrifying that one can potentially sign half of their home away on one signature, yet if you want to go into a branch to draw £1000 out you get the Spanish inquisition.

Hoping he doesn't stick the knife in harder than he already has.

Was the sale of your mums property and the purchase of the do-er upper all handled at the same time by the same solicitor? Or did her property sell first and she had the funds in an account and later purchased the doer upper?

Its really important because if the sale and purchase happened together, your mums partner would not have been able to be involved in the sale as it wasn’t his property.  Therefore, it would have been her SALES solicitor who could have warned her about the 
Pitfalls of investing HER monies with her partner in another purchase.

You say her partner handled it all but that’s not a defence I’m afraid (unless the purchase solicitor was unscrupulous which is unlikely), the purchase would have been in joint names and its important to know where the funds came from, seamless from the sale of her property, in an account in her sole name or did she put it in a joint account?  

You say it’s terrifying someone can sign half their money away in one signature but it wouldn’t have been one signature and because a solicitor was involved they would have been satisfied your mum was fully aware of what she was doing unless they were unscrupulous as I said which is unlikely, or her partner really hoodwinked her somehow.

The sale and purchase were handled by the same solicitor. The sales invoice is entirely in Mums name, it shows the balance of her sale which is then carried across onto the purchase invoice. At no point were any other funds introduced, in fact there was a small residual balance at the end, which I presume came back as a refund.

When I say that her partner handled it all, I only mean that he took the lead. I'm not saying she wasn't at all involved, and I'm not saying she didn't sign the paperwork, but he was the driving force. She trusted him explicitly at the time, of course she did, but she's not completely ignorant and that's why this is hard to unravel. It was the same with my property when my Wife and I bought it.

I'm reassured by your comment about not being able to sign it away just on one signature, I'm not as ignorant as some here might think. I'm trying to quiz my Mum to find out what her state of mind was. I'm also suspicious of the solicitors reluctance to provide any of the paperwork. I think they're a fairly respectable company, but my Mum is fairly sensible and so I can't figure out how/why she would have agreed to purchase the new home in this way if it had been explained to her and that's all I'm trying to get to the bottom of.

Well you said you mum trusted her ex so like most people in long term trusting relationships they don't think the chance of them breaking up is likely. Also the plan was for her ex to pay for all the repairs and organise all the work that needs doing to fix up the house and he isn't going to do this on a house that he doesn't own. At the time i can see why the 50/50 split was agreed because you mum puts all the money in at the start yes but then her ex would have been putting in a lot of work and money over the next however many months/years it would have taken to finish the project. 

So I'm not too sure why you are so surprised she agreed to buy the house in this way because there is a good explanation why it was done.

But putting in a £250k purchase, compared to, say, £50k renovation doesn't really add up?

I'm still back to the same position, does a solicitor have any duty of care to advise of the risks/consequences? If so, and they did it, then I accept she made her choice and we'll move on. But if this life-changing decision was made on one ill-informed signature, that's surely a problem for anyone?

It may not add up to you but some lot's of couples split everything including big assets 50/50 even where one may earn considerably more than the other.

Have you asked your mum and did she know that the house would be effectively 50/50 ownership? If not they how did she think the ownership was split between them?.
If she knew that the ownership was split equally between her and her ex then she must have understood that if they broke up he would be entitled to half?

I can completely understand why you would feel this situation was unfair but it was your mums choice to do this and you need to make sure you don't get carried away telling her how awful it is that he is entitled to half and making her feel worse about everything.

cnbcnb

sassyblue said:

OP I typed up a long reply then had a phone call and lost it all when my iPad went dormant    Anyway, a lot of offices are open but operating with skeleton staff because of social distancing rules so I can understand a delay (as they may still be overwhelmed with work), however, two weeks is a long time so get your mum to call them today.  They may not take instructions from you as the file is not in your name AND they actually have a duty of confidentiality to your mum, even the fact that she is a client of theirs is confidential information. Your mum must call.

Secondly, I had a thought.... who was the first (or main) client of this firm?  I was wondering about the reluctance of the Solicitors to provide information, and wondering if the ex was their usual main client.  If he was it could be the case that now they know the relationship has broken down they would rather they represent him in any negotiations to resolve the dispute so they keep his business going forward.  This is only really the case if he was a long standing client of theirs.  In any case, they still have a duty of care towards your mum to provide information here and it should NOT have prejudiced the previous sale and purchase because the Solicitor still had a duty of care towards your mum then as he took her on as a client.

Also, I need to explain again that by the very nature of opening a file and completing a transaction for her the Solicitor was satisfied your mum was of sound mind.  You made comments that the ex was the driving force and your mum’s state of mind but the Solicitor was satisfied otherwise he/she wouldn’t have acted.  You could ask if the file had been made 'high risk' at all, that’s when there could be issues around those areas i.e. if your mum was a heavy drinker and they could smell it on her and were concerned about her state of mind.

I think it’s more than likely your mum was advised of the pitfalls but she was quite happy to go ahead at the time, secure in the relationship and not taking in the importance of the information but of course now it’s gone wrong you are all looking for loopholes, but I get it, it’s natural.

Thanks for this reply. I concur with it all and I'm not saying that my Mum didn't agree to it. I've asked her repeatedly, outright, if she remembers it and she doesn't, so it would mean that she's lying to me, she has no reason to do this but I'm keeping an open mind.

At this stage, the conversation with the solicitor (on my side at least) is polite and respectful, I've asked for their help. They are, of course, not willing to share documents with me and that's fine, I don't expect them to. But I have been copying Mum into the emails, so they could reply just to her. They are now saying that the written authority of BOTH parties is required to release ANY documents. Surely she's entitled to see anything she signed in her own right and they haven't offered any help, only defensiveness. It sounds like a company that might be getting a bit nervous to me.

I know it's not perfect me fronting this up for her, it makes her sound like an idiot, which she isn't. That shouldn't obscure the facts though, it sounds as though they should have had a duty of care to her regardless and we're now questioning that. If they can't/won't answer it, then that could indicate a problem in their process. It wouldn't make me very smart if I watched her to simply hand over half and walk away. In retrospect, I guess people would then wonder why we didn't ask questions!