Can We remove a name off deeds?

Caz3121

fozzy7895 said:

Yeah they’re tenants in common. 

what is the current market value of the property and what is the % split?....is it 50/50?

fozzy7895

My partners mum says he has 25% but she also told me his name shouldn’t be on the deeds so I wouldn’t hold my breath.

fozzy7895

And in it’s current state I’d say I’d say it’s worth 60-70k needs lots of work doing to it. But now refusing to do anything until everything is sorted.

gettingtheresometime

macman said:

How on earth did you think he could be named on the mortgage but not own a share of the property? if you borrow for a mortgage, you have to offer the property as security against default.
Either party can force a sale as tenants in common, so your mum has no security if he wants to realise his asset. If you want to buy the property from your mum, you'll have to buy out his share (is it registered at 50%, or less?), and of course he'll be expecting full market value for that share.

I have a feeling that the rules about being on a mortgage and not on the deeds must have changed as I know this is how my mum got caught out when my parents divorced - when they originally bought the house in the 1960s it was just my father's name on the deeds and it was still the case when they remortgaged in the 1980s

theartfullodger

Sounds like Dad should have had his share of the rent 

He might be viewing...

davilown

Deprivation of assets also comes to mind for both of the named ones the deeds - have you looked into this op?

macman

fozzy7895 said:

My partners mum says he has 25% but she also told me his name shouldn’t be on the deeds so I wouldn’t hold my breath.

It will take you 5 minutes and £3 to download the deeds from the LR and find out, rather than speculating. 'Shouldn't' is not what is relevant: based on what you have told us, he owns 25% of the property.
I don't understand the economics here: you have just spent £35K doing it up but say it's now still worth only £60-70K? Or is most of that spend mortgage repayments?

TBagpuss

fozzy7895 said:

So me and my partner live in his mums house and have spent £35,000 on repairs and mortgage contributions and she wants to sell the house to us for the remaining £33,000 left on the mortgage. 

The slight issue is that my partners dad is on the deeds aswell but he left almost 10 years ago after being kicked out and charges pressed against him for assault.

Recently he sent a letter addressed to my partners mum (who doesn’t live at this address so we have ignored it). In the letter he is asking for money out of the house and included a mobile number but no address. He hasn’t contributed a penny towards the mortgage since the beginning and can prove through bank statements over the years. Is there a way for the house to be sold to us without his permission or at least get him removed from the deeds? My partners mum has been paying the mortgage on her own and for the last 5 years myself and my partner have been paying it.

please help

Short answer, No.

He is still an owner of the property and the fact that he left and had behaved badly prior to that, don't either of them mean that he loses his entitlements.


If they were never married then (unless there is a declaration of trust) the starting point is a presumption that he is entitled to 50% of the current equity. If you and your partner are asserting an interest in the house based on your contributions ten  you would have to make that claim at the same time.

If there is a declaration of trust then he is entitled to whatever share of the property the declaration says he is entitled to. 

OF course, ideally there will be a negotiation about this to avoid the cost and time involved in it going through the courts.

In the first instance, it sounds as though someone needs to respond to his letter to request a correspondence address, and then you and your partner's mum probably both need to separately speak to solicitors about whether and how you can protect the contributions you've made. 

kingstreet

It sounds like a Jones v Kernott case.

TBagpuss

kingstreet said:

It sounds like a Jones v Kernott case.

Possibly - OP's partner's mum would have to show that there was a joint intention that the ex would not longer have an interest / that the interests had changed. May well be distinguishable give than OP has not mentioned splitting of any other assets, and that it appears that the co-owner did not leave voluntarily.

But either way, they need to get some advice and be ready to negotiate. It may be that he will accept a smaller amount to get quick cash, and it's possible of course that if he understands the property is to go to his child rather than his ex that he will be more amenable.