House status following split...

cnbcnb

wilfred30 said:

The thing is that he doesn't have to do anything.  If he so chooses, he can just continue to be joint owner of the property for as long as he likes.  It's not even as though he would be responsible for paying half a mortgage because there isn't one.  I honestly think you and your mum are being overly optimistic thinking that you can just buy him off for the cost of materials he's used so far.

On what basis do you think the matter would go to Court?  

Let's hope he's got a bit more compassion than you, given the hell he's already put his partner of 10 years through. She can apparently serve notice to sever the joint tenancy, which, from what I read, a solicitor/court can force through, with a settlement of course.

But you think she should instead just kiss goodbye to £125k and move on? You'd do that, would you?

sassyblue

OP, I have sent you a private message, just in case you haven’t seen it.

wilfred30

cnbcnb said:

wilfred30 said:

The thing is that he doesn't have to do anything.  If he so chooses, he can just continue to be joint owner of the property for as long as he likes.  It's not even as though he would be responsible for paying half a mortgage because there isn't one.  I honestly think you and your mum are being overly optimistic thinking that you can just buy him off for the cost of materials he's used so far.

On what basis do you think the matter would go to Court?  

Let's hope he's got a bit more compassion than you, given the hell he's already put his partner of 10 years through. She can apparently serve notice to sever the joint tenancy, which, from what I read, a solicitor/court can force through, with a settlement of course.

But you think she should instead just kiss goodbye to £125k and move on? You'd do that, would you?

Well, that's great.  Yes, she can sever the joint tenancy without his permission so they will become tenants in common rather than joint tenants.  Presumably, if he doesn't co-operate, a judge would need to decide the percentage split which, of course, should be heavily in your mum's favour as she paid for the property.  However, don't forget that he will still be a co-owner and she wouldn't be able to sell without his permission.  Unless of course he is given a settlement that he considers sufficient to agree to remove his name completely.

By the way, it's not that I lack compassion for your mother's predicament but you are on the inside and I'm on the outside looking in so my viewpoint is based more on reality than emotion.  I am simply playing devil's advocate to help you look at both sides of the coin.  

I sincerely hope that it all works out for your mum.  Although she made a mistake doing joint tenants rather than tenants in common, she doesn't deserve to lose that amount of money on top of the pain of being cheated on for 10 years.

cnbcnb

Yes, I noticed the aspect of severing a joint tenancy without consent, but that only provides a shift over to a 50/50 Tenants in Common arrangement. A logical answer, but no use to us in this situation.

I've just read through an interesting case that has given some context to my Mums situation, I'm adding this info here in case it helps anyone else finding this thread in the future. The case of 'Oxley v Hiscock [2005] Fam 211', which can easily be found via a Google search sought to deal with a 50/50 claim on a Joint Tenancy property owned by an unmarried couple, having put in unequal shares. The circumstances were very much more complicated than my Mums, in that the property had been owned for many years, had been purchased using a 'right-to-buy' advantage, running costs had to weigh fairly heavily due to length of ownership, plus there was a mortgage. It was reassuring to read that the judge took a pragmatic and practical view of it and enforced a percentage share reflective of the circumstances, which is all I'm hoping for here.

Gavin83

There are two different aspects here, the moral standpoint and the legal standpoint. Morally given how little money he put in she should retain the majority of the property.

However the law doesn’t (mostly) work on morals and his cheating has no bearing legally what so ever. Legally he is a 50% owner of the property and in all honesty were this to go to court this is what he would be awarded. 

You can appeal to him if you wish and he is free to give up as much of his share as he wishes. However you’ll struggle to sneak this I past him. He’ll almost certainly be required (or at least told) to seek his own legal advice and that solicitor will tell him he’s entitled to half the house.

Oxley v Hiscock is a completely different case. In that case they weren’t joint owners, one was a sole owner. It’s a beneficial interest case, the other party received a percentage of the property value despite not being an owner because they’d contributed to the development of the property. This doesn’t apply to your mothers case.

I appreciate it’s a horrible situation for your mother to be in but ultimately she’s made a mistake and a very expensive one at that. I wish you the best of luck with this situation but you’re mostly reliant on the goodwill of her ex and only you know how reliable that is.

burlingtonfl6

cnbcnb said:

sassyblue said:

Where is your mum's file of paperwork? It may be the case that she was also given a leaflet produced by the firm explaining how a property could be held, even one on a Trust Deed.  If you can find it you know the issue was raised with her at least.

I did post another reply to you but it’s disappeared, this forum isn’t good on an iPad but I wanted to say all is not lost because if this matter came to the family lawyer I work for she’d be making sure your mum's ex was paid off for the work he’d done to the property thus far and, in return, remove his name from the property.

He may technically be a co-owner but he didn’t put a penny in and his name was only added months ago. I really cannot see him walking away with half the value, nowhere near that in fact.

I really appreciate your view. Where are you based? Is there a possibility the firm you work for might be interested in this case? I understand the law, but I hope that if it ever did end up in court that the judge would act rationally, given the whole sequence of events.

I know there are those on here that believe that my Mum did what she did and that's that, but there is a bit more to it than that and anyone in my position would want to ensure that their loved ones don't get shafted.

I'm hoping that if he seeks legal advice, it will be pointed out to him that an offer to reimburse him all that he has spent is a decent offer and that staking a claim for half isn't, for him, without its risks. He has nothing to prove what he has spent, no receipts or anything.

If she had cheated on him, I'd still be taking her side as she is my Mum, but in this case, he has been an absolute rat to her. She loved her home, she only moved because he wanted a project and she wanted to make him happy. Things didn't outwardly start to go wrong until after they moved, though we do know he'd been up to no good for much longer.

Understandable, but it's a bit hypocritical of you to say this.
I'd leave the cheating aspect out of the argument. 

cnbcnb

burlingtonfl6 said:

cnbcnb said:

sassyblue said:

Where is your mum's file of paperwork? It may be the case that she was also given a leaflet produced by the firm explaining how a property could be held, even one on a Trust Deed.  If you can find it you know the issue was raised with her at least.

I did post another reply to you but it’s disappeared, this forum isn’t good on an iPad but I wanted to say all is not lost because if this matter came to the family lawyer I work for she’d be making sure your mum's ex was paid off for the work he’d done to the property thus far and, in return, remove his name from the property.

He may technically be a co-owner but he didn’t put a penny in and his name was only added months ago. I really cannot see him walking away with half the value, nowhere near that in fact.

I really appreciate your view. Where are you based? Is there a possibility the firm you work for might be interested in this case? I understand the law, but I hope that if it ever did end up in court that the judge would act rationally, given the whole sequence of events.

I know there are those on here that believe that my Mum did what she did and that's that, but there is a bit more to it than that and anyone in my position would want to ensure that their loved ones don't get shafted.

I'm hoping that if he seeks legal advice, it will be pointed out to him that an offer to reimburse him all that he has spent is a decent offer and that staking a claim for half isn't, for him, without its risks. He has nothing to prove what he has spent, no receipts or anything.

If she had cheated on him, I'd still be taking her side as she is my Mum, but in this case, he has been an absolute rat to her. She loved her home, she only moved because he wanted a project and she wanted to make him happy. Things didn't outwardly start to go wrong until after they moved, though we do know he'd been up to no good for much longer.

Understandable, but it's a bit hypocritical of you to say this.
I'd leave the cheating aspect out of the argument. 

It's not hypocritical really, she's my Mum, I would never have sided with him. Just the same as his Daughter is not siding with my Mum, despite her having done nothing wrong. But anyway, this aspect isn't really relevant to the discussion, sorry for bringing it up.